6 ms·

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way arou

by skidoo 12y ago

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician is a liar. All of this needs to be acknowledged. Rallies and demonstrations and petitions are entirely useless and wasted efforts.

jbeckham 12y ago
If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. Almost all of the state and federal politicians have started at local levels, especially the congressmen. The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt than it is to go out, do the homework, speak to the candidates, and then determine which ones mean what they say. Instead of complaining about the system, why don't you learn the system and then do something about it.
- jnbiche 12y ago
  >If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. In the off chance you see this (since this post has been flag-killed), I'll answer this question for you. I worked on the tech team of a well-known political consulting firm for a few years out of college. While I was not a consultant myself, nor have I run for office, I have seen up close what it takes to get elected. First of all, by far most politicians are egoists to the point of being sociopathic. This is not a coincidence, this is who our current political system favors. It's not necessarily all the fault of our forefathers, however (who definitely had the right idea, just the wrong implementation). It's the particular combination of two-party democracy with mass media that has led to this state of affairs. To get ahead in this environment, it's a huge help if you believe that you are dramatically smarter, better-looking, and more charming than the next guy or gal. Rational people, who are able to quantitatively and honestly say to themselves, I'm pretty smart, but X and Y are better analytic thinkers, and Z and W have better social intelligence, are at a distinct disadvantage in this kind of system. And then, there are a handful of true idealists who have succeeded in this environment. Without exception, and regardless of party, all of these people have compromised at least some of their core values, and few of them are able to even accomplish the smallest of tasks to further their ideals, because of all the moral and ethical compromises that they have made to get to where they are. And then there are a very small handful of idealistic people who hang on to most of their ideals, and manage to gain a respectable number of followers. When they move to make big gains, the system crushes these outliers. I give you Howard Dean and Ron Paul as examples of this phenomenon on opposite ends of the political spectrum. So no, individual honest people, by their very nature, have very little chance at winning elections in this kind of system. Collectively, they have no chance. The system is fundamentally broken, and the sooner smart, intelligent people are able to admit this, the sooner we can fix things. Edit: I will add one thing that you're absolutely correct about. Local (county and municipal) government is the last bastion of honest people (and the only elections I still vote in), because it's the one place where traditional campaigns are not run. Particularly in small counties and cities, people are elected on their actual reputations instead of how they run a campaign. But when they try to move up to Congress, they have little chance against a well-funded politician of the type I describe above (and absent self-funding by a wealthy candidate, the dishonest politician will inevitably raise more funds, since it's easier to raise funds if you have no moral or ethical boundaries about who you accept funds from, and how you raise them).
- innguest 12y ago
  So if a family is kidnapped and the kidnappers establish a system where the family members can leave one by one if they can win at the challenges the kidnappers come up with, and one of the family members has a few ideas of how to break free of this oppression, but none of those ideas are within the "system" put forward by the kidnappers, then you'd tell that family that instead of daydreaming about these other possible solutions, that they should just accept the oppression and only work within the framework of this oppressive environment and its system which was architected by the oppressor? Because the way you put it makes it seem like you are blind to some of the most basic government propaganda. Of course oppressor gangs will want you to believe you can only change the way you're oppressed through their approved means. That's part of being an oppressor, lying to your victims to keep them from revolting, convincing them the only way to change is through these meticulous set of steps, that they have to talk to so and so, establish this and that, fill this form out, sign here, fingerprint this, get in line, come back tomorrow, we'll let you know when we've made a decision on your case, to finally tell you nothing will be done regarding your concern. Wake up.
rjbwork 12y ago
Sorry, I like not being in prison for tax evasion.
jpetersonmn 12y ago
I disagree, this is a sure fire way to keep going down the wrong path. I feel that the problem is that Americans for the most part only participate in democracy 1 day every 4 years. To make a difference people need to care and get involved on a constant basis. We get the government that we ask for.
fmdud 12y ago
>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.” DFW wrote that 15 years ago at this point. Non-voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. The fact that you're not voting means they don't have to give a shit about what you think.
- biggot_man 12y ago
  Lets call our two-party-government "democracy". It will be fun. Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ? It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.
  - jbeckham 12y ago
    We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference. Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway. EDIT/Clarification: We don't have a pure democracy in the United States. We have representative democracy and a republic as pointed out below.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory. "Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government. Counter examples: The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy. North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.
e40 12y ago
This amounts to abandoning the system to those that are messing it up, and will only result in things getting worse and worse until revolution is the only possible fix. I can't believe that's the only fix. I think your attitude is what's causing the problem. Many politicians realized, decades ago, that fear and social issues could be used to redirect people's attention (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, threat of terrorism). They also realized that frustration is an effective weapon to disarm the people--a frustrated population is much more likely to turn away from the process, like you have, and disengage. Once you disengage, you have no voice and no power.
- innguest 12y ago
  Look at the system this gang you call "government" has created. They tell you you rule the country, but you have to tell them what you want, through these voting things. Then they ignore those voting things and just do as they please. Then the fools that believed they could change their oppressor's mind with voting things, get upset that the voting things didn't work. The gang assures you that voting things work. So you're left to believe that the reason the system doesn't work is because not enough people are using the voting things. Yeah! They're the problem! Oh no, look away! - the gang threatening to throw you in a cage for not paying protection money isn't the problem, because you see, they are you since they have assured you that you are in control, through these voting things. That's the circular reasoning they use to take down your thinking skills. I'm impressed it only took this much to fool you, as this is really basic rhetoric that most children can see through. Yes, let's change our oppressor ways through oppressor-approved means, because there's no oppressor, as our oppressor keeps telling us. Genius.
nkohari 12y ago
Right, because that's how democracy works.

by skidoo 12y ago

jbeckham 12y ago

If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. Almost all of the state and federal politicians have started at local levels, especially the congressmen. The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt than it is to go out, do the homework, speak to the candidates, and then determine which ones mean what they say. Instead of complaining about the system, why don't you learn the system and then do something about it.

jnbiche 12y ago
>If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. In the off chance you see this (since this post has been flag-killed), I'll answer this question for you. I worked on the tech team of a well-known political consulting firm for a few years out of college. While I was not a consultant myself, nor have I run for office, I have seen up close what it takes to get elected. First of all, by far most politicians are egoists to the point of being sociopathic. This is not a coincidence, this is who our current political system favors. It's not necessarily all the fault of our forefathers, however (who definitely had the right idea, just the wrong implementation). It's the particular combination of two-party democracy with mass media that has led to this state of affairs. To get ahead in this environment, it's a huge help if you believe that you are dramatically smarter, better-looking, and more charming than the next guy or gal. Rational people, who are able to quantitatively and honestly say to themselves, I'm pretty smart, but X and Y are better analytic thinkers, and Z and W have better social intelligence, are at a distinct disadvantage in this kind of system. And then, there are a handful of true idealists who have succeeded in this environment. Without exception, and regardless of party, all of these people have compromised at least some of their core values, and few of them are able to even accomplish the smallest of tasks to further their ideals, because of all the moral and ethical compromises that they have made to get to where they are. And then there are a very small handful of idealistic people who hang on to most of their ideals, and manage to gain a respectable number of followers. When they move to make big gains, the system crushes these outliers. I give you Howard Dean and Ron Paul as examples of this phenomenon on opposite ends of the political spectrum. So no, individual honest people, by their very nature, have very little chance at winning elections in this kind of system. Collectively, they have no chance. The system is fundamentally broken, and the sooner smart, intelligent people are able to admit this, the sooner we can fix things. Edit: I will add one thing that you're absolutely correct about. Local (county and municipal) government is the last bastion of honest people (and the only elections I still vote in), because it's the one place where traditional campaigns are not run. Particularly in small counties and cities, people are elected on their actual reputations instead of how they run a campaign. But when they try to move up to Congress, they have little chance against a well-funded politician of the type I describe above (and absent self-funding by a wealthy candidate, the dishonest politician will inevitably raise more funds, since it's easier to raise funds if you have no moral or ethical boundaries about who you accept funds from, and how you raise them).
innguest 12y ago
So if a family is kidnapped and the kidnappers establish a system where the family members can leave one by one if they can win at the challenges the kidnappers come up with, and one of the family members has a few ideas of how to break free of this oppression, but none of those ideas are within the "system" put forward by the kidnappers, then you'd tell that family that instead of daydreaming about these other possible solutions, that they should just accept the oppression and only work within the framework of this oppressive environment and its system which was architected by the oppressor? Because the way you put it makes it seem like you are blind to some of the most basic government propaganda. Of course oppressor gangs will want you to believe you can only change the way you're oppressed through their approved means. That's part of being an oppressor, lying to your victims to keep them from revolting, convincing them the only way to change is through these meticulous set of steps, that they have to talk to so and so, establish this and that, fill this form out, sign here, fingerprint this, get in line, come back tomorrow, we'll let you know when we've made a decision on your case, to finally tell you nothing will be done regarding your concern. Wake up.

rjbwork 12y ago

Sorry, I like not being in prison for tax evasion.

jpetersonmn 12y ago

I disagree, this is a sure fire way to keep going down the wrong path. I feel that the problem is that Americans for the most part only participate in democracy 1 day every 4 years. To make a difference people need to care and get involved on a constant basis. We get the government that we ask for.

fmdud 12y ago

>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote.” DFW wrote that 15 years ago at this point. Non-voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. The fact that you're not voting means they don't have to give a shit about what you think.

biggot_man 12y ago
Lets call our two-party-government "democracy". It will be fun. Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ? It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.
- jbeckham 12y ago
  We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference. Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway. EDIT/Clarification: We don't have a pure democracy in the United States. We have representative democracy and a republic as pointed out below.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory. "Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government. Counter examples: The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy. North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.

e40 12y ago

This amounts to abandoning the system to those that are messing it up, and will only result in things getting worse and worse until revolution is the only possible fix. I can't believe that's the only fix. I think your attitude is what's causing the problem. Many politicians realized, decades ago, that fear and social issues could be used to redirect people's attention (abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, threat of terrorism). They also realized that frustration is an effective weapon to disarm the people--a frustrated population is much more likely to turn away from the process, like you have, and disengage. Once you disengage, you have no voice and no power.

innguest 12y ago
Look at the system this gang you call "government" has created. They tell you you rule the country, but you have to tell them what you want, through these voting things. Then they ignore those voting things and just do as they please. Then the fools that believed they could change their oppressor's mind with voting things, get upset that the voting things didn't work. The gang assures you that voting things work. So you're left to believe that the reason the system doesn't work is because not enough people are using the voting things. Yeah! They're the problem! Oh no, look away! - the gang threatening to throw you in a cage for not paying protection money isn't the problem, because you see, they are you since they have assured you that you are in control, through these voting things. That's the circular reasoning they use to take down your thinking skills. I'm impressed it only took this much to fool you, as this is really basic rhetoric that most children can see through. Yes, let's change our oppressor ways through oppressor-approved means, because there's no oppressor, as our oppressor keeps telling us. Genius.

nkohari 12y ago

Right, because that's how democracy works.