No, regulations mean that the corporations are going to have to start giving a shit about their workers. Saying "Outsourcing jobs create more jobs than it loses" makes no sense. Ethier there are jobs in one place and not the other or vice versa. Cheapness comes at a cost. Ether at the expense of the corporations profits or the workers.

(Marriage is not a right).

It is but w/e

I also really hate punks and modern counter culture. Those drug addicts and idiots have greatly contributed to the disinterest of politics among young people.

Why should anyone be interested in politics? I think people might be disinterested for reasons other than my own, but I do think disinterest and dissatisfaction with the current political state of the world is a good thing. Also weed isn't a drug narc scum 420 blaze it ayylmao

Regulations mean they close. Also, outsourcing creates more jobs than it loses, just not in the US. It also makes the things we buy cheaper.

And what of human rights?

If you're not interested in politics then you shouldn't complain when your country's government does something unfair and bad

If you're not interested in politics then you shouldn't complain when your country's government does something unfair and bad

I don't. I complain that it exists at all.

If you're not interested in politics then you shouldn't complain when your country's government does something unfair and bad

I don't. I complain that it exists at all.

Oho! Touche!

If you're not interested in politics then you shouldn't complain when your country's government does something unfair and bad

I don't. I complain that it exists at all.

Anarchist?

u no it, bb

u no it, bb

How are you expecting society to run without a Government? Im really hoping you dont say "The Corporations will look after us"...

u no it, bb

I would agree with you if all of humanity was perfect. But humanity isn't perfect. The moment it's perfect, we can be anarchist without society falling apart.

How are you expecting society to run without a Government? Im really hoping you dont say "The Corporations will look after us"...

Don't worry, anarchism holds several schools of thought, of which I consider myself a student of many, but anarcho-capitalism is not one of them. I prefer the current system of government over a corporatocracy (although, we are getting pretty close to the point where the distinction between the two will be unclear)

I would agree with you if all of humanity was perfect. But humanity isn't perfect. The moment it's perfect, we can be anarchist without society falling apart.

While, ideally I'd like for there to no government anywhere, I recognize how unfair that is to all the people who do. In my mind, today, anarchism could work in a similar way to many communes and places like Revolutionary Catalonia. In that, people who to live a society without any solid rule, could, they just need some countries to give up the acres and acres of unused territory to classify as for that purpose. It'd be dangerous, uncivilized, and certainly an unpredictable experiment, sure. But we have enough successful examples of small anarchist areas being run peacefully and successfully that I think giving people the choice is paramount. The people don't need to be perfect, slab city, communes, and other places that run with little government intervention aren't perfect (see Tower of David, Kowloon Walled City) But they aren't in flames, in the Tower of David's case it absolutely worked when the government wasn't there, and in Kowloon's case it's improving with minimal government assistance, I think that's a step in the right direction. All of humanity doesn't need to be perfect, we just need a group of people given the opportunity that are willing to try.

How are you expecting society to run without a Government? Im really hoping you dont say "The Corporations will look after us"...

Don't worry, anarchism holds several schools of thought, of which I consider myself a student of many, but anarcho-capitalism is not one of them. I prefer the current system of government over a corporatocracy (although, we are getting pretty close to the point where the distinction between the two will be unclear)

I would agree with you if all of humanity was perfect. But humanity isn't perfect. The moment it's perfect, we can be anarchist without society falling apart.

While, ideally I'd like for there to no government anywhere, I recognize how unfair that is to all the people who do. In my mind, today, anarchism could work in a similar way to many communes and places like Revolutionary Catalonia. In that, people who to live a society without any solid rule, could, they just need some countries to give up the acres and acres of unused territory to classify as for that purpose. It'd be dangerous, uncivilized, and certainly an unpredictable experiment, sure. But we have enough successful examples of small anarchist areas being run peacefully and successfully that I think giving people the choice is paramount. The people don't need to be perfect, slab city, communes, and other places that run with little government intervention aren't perfect (see Tower of David, Kowloon Walled City) But they aren't in flames, in the Tower of David's case it absolutely worked when the government wasn't there, and in Kowloon's case it's improving with minimal government assistance, I think that's a step in the right direction. All of humanity doesn't need to be perfect, we just need a group of people given the opportunity that are willing to try.

Hmm, it seems my school of thought is closer to anarchism than I previously thought. Then again my schools of thought seem to always be morphing into other things and it really depends on what mood I'm in. But anyway, Thanks for the enlightenment

Np m80, discussion is always fun.

u no it, bb

Then I'm guessing you wouldn't like my believe that bigger government is better right? I don't believe in Anarchism

u no it, bb

Then I'm guessing you wouldn't like my believe that bigger government is better right? I don't believe in Anarchism

Besides a bigger goverment do you think we need a dofferent goverment type? By which I mean replace democracy with somethin else? Or perhaps remodel democracy?

u no it, bb

Then I'm guessing you wouldn't like my believe that bigger government is better right? I don't believe in Anarchism

Depends on the type of government and the people who run it. I personally believe, a small country or city-state, places like Monaco, Palau, Hong Kong, and Singapore-- benefit GREATLY from their governments, where laws and regulations are more personal and local, the size of the people is manageable and there aren't a million districts and filters isolating from the citizens to the people in charge. Those are some of the most successful places in the world--I do believe in anarchism, consider myself an anarchist, but I also believe that government can be implemented to an extremely successful degree if the actual government and the people are tightly knit-- city-states, basically. Big government works on that scale. On the scale of America? Not so much. The layers between the people and the federal government are completely bloated and corrupt.

u no it, bb

Then I'm guessing you wouldn't like my believe that bigger government is better right? I don't believe in Anarchism

Besides a bigger goverment do you think we need a dofferent goverment type? By which I mean replace democracy with somethin else? Or perhaps remodel democracy?

I think the american government while flawed is one the best kind for a nation that's so big, i don't think the European model of government would work for a country so big and diverse. But if it were up to me then I would make a bigger more centralized government run by moderates and the philosophical minded in a more authoritarian style of government. I don't think democracy is as great as so many liberals and social justice warriors scream about. I'm pretty sure I said before, but I believe that not compromising and extremism is the first step to political disaster. No government can survive with those hindrances.

u no it, bb

Then I'm guessing you wouldn't like my believe that bigger government is better right? I don't believe in Anarchism

Depends on the type of government and the people who run it. I personally believe, a small country or city-state, places like Monaco, Palau, Hong Kong, and Singapore-- benefit GREATLY from their governments, where laws and regulations are more personal and local, the size of the people is manageable and there aren't a million districts and filters isolating from the citizens to the people in charge. Those are some of the most successful places in the world--I do believe in anarchism, consider myself an anarchist, but I also believe that government can be implemented to an extremely successful degree if the actual government and the people are tightly knit-- city-states, basically. Big government works on that scale. On the scale of America? Not so much. The layers between the people and the federal government are completely bloated and corrupt.

I don't think city states would work out too well, ancient Greece is a good example of what problems we might face under such a system. It could end in the city states being united under one leader. Also with that form of government then you might have issues with people committing a crime and then fleeing to another city state to escape prosecution. Another problem with a city state system in America would be criminals being able to have more power. If Detroit or Pittsburgh were city states then they would definitely be controlled by organized crime/

I think the american government while flawed is one the best kind for a nation that's so big, i don't think the European model of government would work for a country so big and diverse. But if it were up to me then I would make a bigger more centralized government run by moderates and the philosophical minded in a more authoritarian style of government.

An authoritarian government ran by someone philosophical or moderate (who, might I remind you, would only be that subjectively) would be even worse for a country as diverse as America.

I don't think democracy is as great as so many liberals and social justice warriors scream about. I'm pretty sure I said before, but I believe that not compromising and extremism is the first step to political disaster. No government can survive with those hindrances.

Democracy is great because people are born with the right to decide how they should live-- ideally democracy tries to allow that for the majority and allows for protection of the minority.

I don't think city states would work out too well, ancient Greece is a good example of what problems we might face under such a system. It could end in the city states being united under one leader.

You mean like "a bigger more centralized government run by moderates and the philosophical minded in a more authoritarian style of government?"

Also with that form of government then you might have issues with people committing a crime and then fleeing to another city state to escape prosecution. Another problem with a city state system in America would be criminals being able to have more power. If Detroit or Pittsburgh were city states then they would definitely be controlled by organized crime

So then instead of keeping people trapped in a big pen to avoid them escaping from persecution of crime, we do more to address WHY crime is happening, and why people become inclined to commit it. We should also look at things, less from the 'objective' eye of the law, and more from where it touches the actual people who matter-- the 'War on Drugs' is dumb, we need to be looking at things like actual violent crimes, human trafficking, and child slavery.

An authoritarian government ran by someone philosophical or moderate (who, might I remind you, would only be that subjectively) would be even worse for a country as diverse as America.

Speaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- _{'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'}*) Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.

I think the american government while flawed is one the best kind for a nation that's so big, i don't think the European model of government would work for a country so big and diverse. But if it were up to me then I would make a bigger more centralized government run by moderates and the philosophical minded in a more authoritarian style of government.

An authoritarian government ran by someone philosophical or moderate (who, might I remind you, would only be that subjectively) would be even worse for a country as diverse as America.

I don't think democracy is as great as so many liberals and social justice warriors scream about. I'm pretty sure I said before, but I believe that not compromising and extremism is the first step to political disaster. No government can survive with those hindrances.

Democracy is great because people are born with the right to decide how they should live-- ideally democracy tries to allow that for the majority and allows for protection of the minority.

I don't think city states would work out too well, ancient Greece is a good example of what problems we might face under such a system. It could end in the city states being united under one leader.

You mean like "a bigger more centralized government run by moderates and the philosophical minded in a more authoritarian style of government?"

Also with that form of government then you might have issues with people committing a crime and then fleeing to another city state to escape prosecution. Another problem with a city state system in America would be criminals being able to have more power. If Detroit or Pittsburgh were city states then they would definitely be controlled by organized crime

So then instead of keeping people trapped in a big pen to avoid them escaping from persecution of crime, we do more to address WHY crime is happening, and why people become inclined to commit it. We should also look at things, less from the 'objective' eye of the law, and more from where it touches the actual people who matter-- the 'War on Drugs' is dumb, we need to be looking at things like actual violent crimes, human trafficking, and child slavery.

I think you have confused authoritarian with a dictatorship. My ideal government would be run by several people of varying ethnicity but all have to be moderate and philosophical minded. So it's not one person running the country it's several. As for crime, in a philosophical controlled government the leaders would try to find solutions to crimes and why criminals create them. My view on the war on drugs is that we need to hit the real distributors and we also need to fix Mexico. If we spent more time focusing on Mexico's problems than with our wars in the middle east then we would be able to solve the emigration problems in our country. In my government people have rights which include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but ruling the country is not one of them, they would still be allowed to make petitions and bring issues to the leaders. Also I think it would be good for the leaders to meet regularly and discuss policies and solutions to problems. If the government goes bad then people have their guns to fight back. I forgot to say this, but I don't believe duel citizenship and find it unfair that people with it are at more of an advantage than people with only one form of citizenship

Speaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- _{'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'}*) Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.

This homie knows what's up

I think you have confused authoritarian with a dictatorship. My ideal government would be run by several people of varying ethnicity but all have to be moderate and philosophical minded. So it's not one person running the country it's several. As for crime, in a philosophical controlled government the leaders would try to find solutions to crimes and why criminals create them.

Right but what IS "moderate and philosophical minded?" That's such a vague and subjective standard to choose a council that runs everything-- you could have a group of hedonists who bankrupt the country and bathe in golden ambrosia and just as easily a group of moderate nihilists who either do literally nothing or just decide that the continuing of life is useless and try to kill everyone.

My view on the war on drugs is that we need to hit the real distributors and we also need to fix Mexico. If we spent more time focusing on Mexico's problems than with our wars in the middle east then we would be able to solve the emigration problems in our country.

The government doesn't want to 'hit the real distributors,' starting in the 80's, the government profits off the sale of drugs, be it through direct profit made from confiscated drugs and money, and all the free labor earned from imprisoning the offenders.

In my government people have rights which include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but ruling the country is not one of them, they would still be allowed to make petitions and bring issues to the leaders. Also I think it would be good for the leaders to meet regularly and discuss policies and solutions to problems.

We won't agree on this, I think. I think I, as a person, have a right to decide how I should live, directly, not through suggestions made to a group of supreme leaders.

If the government goes bad then people have their guns to fight back.

Damn str8, m8.

I forgot to say this, but I don't believe duel citizenship and find it unfair that people with it are at more of an advantage than people with only one form of citizenship

We agree on this, but for different reasons-- I don't think citizenship should even be a thing.

Speaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- _{'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'}*) Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.

This homie knows what's up

I think you have confused authoritarian with a dictatorship. My ideal government would be run by several people of varying ethnicity but all have to be moderate and philosophical minded. So it's not one person running the country it's several. As for crime, in a philosophical controlled government the leaders would try to find solutions to crimes and why criminals create them.

Right but what IS "moderate and philosophical minded?" That's such a vague and subjective standard to choose a council that runs everything-- you could have a group of hedonists who bankrupt the country and bathe in golden ambrosia and just as easily a group of moderate nihilists who either do literally nothing or just decide that the continuing of life is useless and try to kill everyone.

My view on the war on drugs is that we need to hit the real distributors and we also need to fix Mexico. If we spent more time focusing on Mexico's problems than with our wars in the middle east then we would be able to solve the emigration problems in our country.

The government doesn't want to 'hit the real distributors,' starting in the 80's, the government profits off the sale of drugs, be it through direct profit made from confiscated drugs and money, and all the free labor earned from imprisoning the offenders.

In my government people have rights which include freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, but ruling the country is not one of them, they would still be allowed to make petitions and bring issues to the leaders. Also I think it would be good for the leaders to meet regularly and discuss policies and solutions to problems.

We won't agree on this, I think. I think I, as a person, have a right to decide how I should live, directly, not through suggestions made to a group of supreme leaders.

If the government goes bad then people have their guns to fight back.

Damn str8, m8.

I forgot to say this, but I don't believe duel citizenship and find it unfair that people with it are at more of an advantage than people with only one form of citizenship

We agree on this, but for different reasons-- I don't think citizenship should even be a thing.

What I mean by moderate is that the government wouldn't be full of extremists and nut jobs who turn political debates into childish shouting fests. And what I mean by philosophically minded is that the leaders would always be asking questions and having civil debates on how a proper society should be run. Political debates would basically be like a philosophy class. In my government you can still choose what you where you want to live and work, but political choices are handled by the government. I just feel like anarchism would have worked before we became so advanced and the world became smaller. Independence just seems like a false hood to me and has plaid a big part in the divide between people. I just don't believe the masses can rule themselves