4 ms·

The truth? The truth is, you should stop enabling the waste of my money, you tax collector scumbags. Maybe if you give me the option of not having my stolen eff

The truth? The truth is, you should stop enabling the waste of my money, you tax collector scumbags. Maybe if you give me the option of not having my stolen effort spent on foreign wars, I'll have some respect for you lickspittles.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Your argument is with politicians, not the tax collector. The IRS funds democracy. They are not scum.
- melted 11y ago
  Democracy is not really what we have though. We the people really don't have much say in what's going on.
  - techsupporter 11y ago
    To be honest, what do you expect to have happened after roughly 100 years of neglect and disinterest by We The People who are supposed to be doing the electing and the watching? All technology seems to have given us is the ability to be even more polarized and entrenched about the way things "ought to be" and, thus, dig in our heels unless we get exactly that.
    - melted 11y ago
      You need to read "People's History of the US" by Howard Zinn. There never was a democracy here. The only times when people had the actual power was during the many armed insurrections, most of which were simply suppressed by force, but some of which did achieve at least some of their ends.
  - nightski 11y ago
    "We the people" is not any one individual. As an individual you are 1 in ~324M. So your say counts extremely little. You have the opportunity to make an impact. But it requires an extraordinary amount of work to make your voice heard over the other ~324M people. As it should.
    - melted 11y ago
      Oh I'm well aware of that. I'm also very aware that: 0. There's no direct vote on laws. This alone makes the US not a democracy, but a republic at best. 1. There's no direct vote for president and vice president. 2. Elected representatives or the president do not care one iota about their constituents between the elections. If you think they do, explain things like TPP 3. Two party system merely creates the illusion of choice. Both parties are right wing, with democrats being slightly more centrist.
      - gwright 11y ago
        The word 'democracy', when used without clarification, is rarely intended to mean a direct democracy with 100% majority rule. Instead, it almost always is shorthand for a republic with representative government. Here is a good discussion of these differences: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demr...
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Instead, it almost always is shorthand for a republic with representative government. Actually, it most often representative democracy, which may be a republic, but may just as easily be, say, a constitutional monarchy.
        gwright 11y ago
        A reasonable clarification of what I was trying to communicate.
        melted 11y ago
        Which, nevertheless, means that people aren't really ruling, and therefore it's not what one could legitimately call "people's rule". Their elected "representatives" (which, let me remind you, don't give a shit about their constituents between elections) write laws. The president, elected by the electoral college people elect (who also doesn't give a shit about the constituents) signs the laws and commands the army which will suppress any challenge to the authority of the federal government with violence if need be. And courts (in which judges aren't elected at all and don't have to give a shit about anybody), interpret the laws. Why do we need so many middlemen? Is this _really_ a democracy? Or is it a mere visibility of "rule of the people" designed to keep the working class, well, working, for the benefit of the ruling class?

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Your argument is with politicians, not the tax collector. The IRS funds democracy. They are not scum.

melted 11y ago
Democracy is not really what we have though. We the people really don't have much say in what's going on.
- techsupporter 11y ago
  To be honest, what do you expect to have happened after roughly 100 years of neglect and disinterest by We The People who are supposed to be doing the electing and the watching? All technology seems to have given us is the ability to be even more polarized and entrenched about the way things "ought to be" and, thus, dig in our heels unless we get exactly that.
  - melted 11y ago
    You need to read "People's History of the US" by Howard Zinn. There never was a democracy here. The only times when people had the actual power was during the many armed insurrections, most of which were simply suppressed by force, but some of which did achieve at least some of their ends.
- nightski 11y ago
  "We the people" is not any one individual. As an individual you are 1 in ~324M. So your say counts extremely little. You have the opportunity to make an impact. But it requires an extraordinary amount of work to make your voice heard over the other ~324M people. As it should.
  - melted 11y ago
    Oh I'm well aware of that. I'm also very aware that: 0. There's no direct vote on laws. This alone makes the US not a democracy, but a republic at best. 1. There's no direct vote for president and vice president. 2. Elected representatives or the president do not care one iota about their constituents between the elections. If you think they do, explain things like TPP 3. Two party system merely creates the illusion of choice. Both parties are right wing, with democrats being slightly more centrist.
    - gwright 11y ago
      The word 'democracy', when used without clarification, is rarely intended to mean a direct democracy with 100% majority rule. Instead, it almost always is shorthand for a republic with representative government. Here is a good discussion of these differences: http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demr...
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Instead, it almost always is shorthand for a republic with representative government. Actually, it most often representative democracy, which may be a republic, but may just as easily be, say, a constitutional monarchy.
        gwright 11y ago
        A reasonable clarification of what I was trying to communicate.
      - melted 11y ago
        Which, nevertheless, means that people aren't really ruling, and therefore it's not what one could legitimately call "people's rule". Their elected "representatives" (which, let me remind you, don't give a shit about their constituents between elections) write laws. The president, elected by the electoral college people elect (who also doesn't give a shit about the constituents) signs the laws and commands the army which will suppress any challenge to the authority of the federal government with violence if need be. And courts (in which judges aren't elected at all and don't have to give a shit about anybody), interpret the laws. Why do we need so many middlemen? Is this _really_ a democracy? Or is it a mere visibility of "rule of the people" designed to keep the working class, well, working, for the benefit of the ruling class?