2 ms·

> you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives. If you want to change the

> you don't get to opt out of democracy because you don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives. If you want to change the system, vote for someone who is aligned with your selfish views (Not the GP, and don’t necessarily onboard with that perspective, but) this can’t be the only way forward, even if the majority of the time it should be. In fact, to keep it working you need to always consider the existence of the “opt-out lever” you outright reject here. The United States itself is founded on and asserts this principle. Of course you meet with resistance of the incumbent if you try to take that route, but that does not imply impossibility in the long arc of time. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence of the United States

otterley 5y ago
We already have this right "to alter or abolish" the Government, though. The Constitution provides a means for us to make amendments by a 2/3rd majority of the states or Congress (see Article V). The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed. Similarly, we can vote in new representatives if we think they're not acting in our best interests. The problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; and that anarchy is the solution to the problem that we collectively make decisions that they sometimes don't agree with. They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. And they don't see the countless ways in which anarchy is worse than democracy. The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls. The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
- notch656a 5y ago
  >The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed Banning and unbanning alcohol was an exercise in democracy in accordance with constitution. The lawmakers recognized for federal government to control intra-state commerce without any other constitutional nexus, they needed to amend the constitution. Then the government decided to 'opt out of democracy because you [they] don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' Ever wonder why it took an amendment for federal government to regulate intrastate alcohol trade while no such amendment was passed for controlled substance act regulating intrastate drug trade? It's because the federal government decided to 'opt out of democracy' because it didn't like the 'tenets that bind everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' There's no constitutional nexus for the NFA regulating intra-state produced machine guns nor the CSA regulating pot grown in your own house for your own consumption. It's mere decision to opt-out facilitated between new-deal era corrupt supreme court and politicians who ironically ignore the 51+% in keeping pot illegal. >he problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; Well the government has decided that by ignoring the constitution. I've decided we shouldn't accept pure democracy at all; not that we have that. >The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls. I'm not sure any pure political system has been tried if you're going to be pedantic. You don't need aggressive coercion to sustain 3 billion souls. Anarchy is an aim for 'society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.' For instance, I've both been to and fought/volunteered for one of our closest examples to anarchism in Rojava, and it is actually becoming one of the most stable and prosperous regions in Syria. Guess that was just me 'whinging and complaining' though, and it wasn't pure idealistic anarchism so I guess it doesn't 'count. > that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; Apparently defined by the 51%, like 1800 era blacks 'responsibility' to be slaves. > They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. Guess the charity, volunteer teaching, donations, and actual fighting I've done for a more anarchistic-like region of world were all just me complaining and whinging. Oh and my oh so virtuous paying of taxes! If only we were all as virtuous as Otterley. >The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better. Are you calling HN some safe space for anarchism? I've been derided nearly every time I've defended anarchism here. In this instance it's merely a democratic idealism clap-trap on your end to try and shame by ad hominem my showing the absurdity of OP's definition of unfair. A definition by which any use of others' scientific research is unfair, because fairness is in their words when 'the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work.' That's what this thread was about and this deep diving into politics is your own self-congratulations to regain whatever sense of pride you lost due to defending an ignorant and thoughtless statement.
notch656a 5y ago
Our own government has already "opted out of the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives." Otterley quote below is very instructive: >The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed Have you ever stopped to think about WHY no amendment was needed to ban intra-state produced drugs as done in the controlled substance act even though it was needed to ban intra-state alcohol by federal government? How it could possibly be interstate commerce for the government to control merely where you store non-commercial use goods in your own state a la gun-free school zone act? The government has long since dropped the charade of following the constitution; they themselves have "opted out of democracy." But if you follow this thread, most of it is him/her just trying to out me as an anarchist (something I've freely admitted anyway) as some sort of ad-hominem way of disproving my point of the absurdity of the definition provided of unfairness, under which scientific research would clearly be excluded from those acting fairly. It's the political version of suggesting I'm wrong because I'm gay.

otterley 5y ago

We already have this right "to alter or abolish" the Government, though. The Constitution provides a means for us to make amendments by a 2/3rd majority of the states or Congress (see Article V). The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed. Similarly, we can vote in new representatives if we think they're not acting in our best interests. The problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; and that anarchy is the solution to the problem that we collectively make decisions that they sometimes don't agree with. They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. And they don't see the countless ways in which anarchy is worse than democracy. The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls. The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.

notch656a 5y ago
>The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed Banning and unbanning alcohol was an exercise in democracy in accordance with constitution. The lawmakers recognized for federal government to control intra-state commerce without any other constitutional nexus, they needed to amend the constitution. Then the government decided to 'opt out of democracy because you [they] don't like the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' Ever wonder why it took an amendment for federal government to regulate intrastate alcohol trade while no such amendment was passed for controlled substance act regulating intrastate drug trade? It's because the federal government decided to 'opt out of democracy' because it didn't like the 'tenets that bind everyone to the laws made by our representatives.' There's no constitutional nexus for the NFA regulating intra-state produced machine guns nor the CSA regulating pot grown in your own house for your own consumption. It's mere decision to opt-out facilitated between new-deal era corrupt supreme court and politicians who ironically ignore the 51+% in keeping pot illegal. >he problem here is that some short-sighted people believe, incorrectly, that they don't have to accept the bad parts of democracy along with the good parts; Well the government has decided that by ignoring the constitution. I've decided we shouldn't accept pure democracy at all; not that we have that. >The human race has tried anarchy; it didn't work long ago, and there's no way it's going to sustain a planetary population of over 3 billion souls. I'm not sure any pure political system has been tried if you're going to be pedantic. You don't need aggressive coercion to sustain 3 billion souls. Anarchy is an aim for 'society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.' For instance, I've both been to and fought/volunteered for one of our closest examples to anarchism in Rojava, and it is actually becoming one of the most stable and prosperous regions in Syria. Guess that was just me 'whinging and complaining' though, and it wasn't pure idealistic anarchism so I guess it doesn't 'count. > that they are exempt from society's responsibilities; Apparently defined by the 51%, like 1800 era blacks 'responsibility' to be slaves. > They don't make things better; they complain and whinge and don't move the needle in any meaningful positive sense. Guess the charity, volunteer teaching, donations, and actual fighting I've done for a more anarchistic-like region of world were all just me complaining and whinging. Oh and my oh so virtuous paying of taxes! If only we were all as virtuous as Otterley. >The Internet has made the problem worse: Whereas these people used to be universally derided as nut jobs who lived on the fringe and communicated via tracts dispatched through the mail, now they can participate in self-congratulatory circle jerks in "safe spaces" on the Internet with hardly anyone sane interrupting them with a dose of reality, history, or common sense. I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better. Are you calling HN some safe space for anarchism? I've been derided nearly every time I've defended anarchism here. In this instance it's merely a democratic idealism clap-trap on your end to try and shame by ad hominem my showing the absurdity of OP's definition of unfair. A definition by which any use of others' scientific research is unfair, because fairness is in their words when 'the success of any individual would only depend on their own actions and work.' That's what this thread was about and this deep diving into politics is your own self-congratulations to regain whatever sense of pride you lost due to defending an ignorant and thoughtless statement.

notch656a 5y ago

Our own government has already "opted out of the tenet that binds everyone to the laws made by our representatives." Otterley quote below is very instructive: >The consumption of alcohol was once forbidden by the Constitution; thank goodness that's no longer proscribed Have you ever stopped to think about WHY no amendment was needed to ban intra-state produced drugs as done in the controlled substance act even though it was needed to ban intra-state alcohol by federal government? How it could possibly be interstate commerce for the government to control merely where you store non-commercial use goods in your own state a la gun-free school zone act? The government has long since dropped the charade of following the constitution; they themselves have "opted out of democracy." But if you follow this thread, most of it is him/her just trying to out me as an anarchist (something I've freely admitted anyway) as some sort of ad-hominem way of disproving my point of the absurdity of the definition provided of unfairness, under which scientific research would clearly be excluded from those acting fairly. It's the political version of suggesting I'm wrong because I'm gay.