The 2008 Elections

[Wselfwulf]

In an anarchic society, no power would rise to the top. We agree that is bad news. Those historical examples are not that of anarchism, which has a pretty rigorous definition. That is the greek root of the word 'no leader'. Not saying apart from this there aren't plenty of problems.

[Uniform Two Six]

Yeah, interesting theory you have there, but you're making a pretty basic error in logic: You are excluding basic human nature from the equation. There can never be any vacume of political power -- ever. Somebody will always step in to fill the void if for nothing else than simple self-interested greed. If you have a true state of anarchy it will always devolve into at least some sort of chaotic oligarchy. Somebody will try to take advantage of the lack of central political power. Even if it only goes as far as a loose collection of totally independent warlords, you will never see a true anarchy (in the sense of the "theoretical" perfect anarchy) that you seem to be proposing. Anarchy is not some sort of utopia. It is the absolute worst sort of hell.

[Terastas]

In an anarchic society-

No such thing. Just the very word "society" implies a collection of individuals assembled on common ground. By banding together in an effort to combat the existence of government, those idiot anarchists would become the government.

The error in your logic is that you're assuming everyone will pitch in and make it work, and not only has that been proven to be an irrational expectation of humanity time and time again, to do so would be absolutely contrary to the definition of anarchy.

Don't let the ICP or that douchebag that used to sing (if you can call it that) for Rage Against The Machine convince you that anarchy might somehow be a good thing. Anarchy is never a good thing; it's a catch phrase for angry teen suburbanites and the hack musicians that cater to them.

[Wselfwulf]

I'm feeling alot of stereotypes from you all (like anarchy is for angry teens - the punk thing is a bastardization of serious political theory), but I understand your criticisms. Yes, egoism is a great hurdle. But to suggest their can never be a power vacuum is one result of egoists constantly rising to fill them in society. Hobbes did have great insight, I think, when he suggested people would act pre-emptively in order to further secure their own survival. But to suggest basic human natures rule our society is ignoring the manner in which we already operate. Mutualism and social contract. This is the idea, I'm not sure why you envision 'warlords'. As hellish as it may seem without a big brother looking after you, I'd prefer this to life guided by deception and arbitrariness.

An no singer of a lacklustre band influences my political ideals. Try kropotkin, goldman, sartre, others if you are ever curious. I know it's easy to have a knee-jerk response accusing of naivete, but as dismissive as you are I am equally confused as to your views. You have a choice? To be screwed by democrats or republicans? You think these people represent and will fulfill ideals? All sides are getting a lot of spin, which comes with media coverage. It is strange that you allow these people to be your leaders and masters, complain about their policies or their lies, but every election vote some pseudo-bleeding heart humanitarian who promises 'real changes'. One should be glad, I guess, that women ever got the vote at all, though it was anti-governmental protest over many years that caused this, not the insight of some president or prime minister.

[MattSullivan]

You all better pray WHOEVER gets elected has a good sense of economics. we're practically on the verge of a second great depression here. Banks are failing EVERYWHERE! This is bad. It's really..really...bad.

[Terastas]

No offense Wself, but I think you're expecting too much of humanity. It's unreasonable to assume that a populace would ever support a motion to suppress the development of government without becoming one, and it's even more unreasonable to assume that anyone would be as saintly as you expect every single elected official to be.

Really, why should you expect the entire planet to pitch in selflessly when you yourself are adamantly refusing to even get off your butt once every four years to add your two cents? If that isn't a double standard, I don't know what is.

Does Obama have his faults? Of course, he's only human. But he convinced me that he was a slightly better choice than Hillary, and he's absolutely a better choice than McCain, so as the best of the people of America that gave enough of a crap about their country to campaign for it, he will have my vote.

As I said before, democracy is at its worst when people stop paying attention to it. Accuse me all you want of "perpetuating the government," but sitting around complaining never changed anything for the better. It's your ilk that the most corrupt politicians love the most: the people that adamantly insist that all politicians suck and therefore remove themselves from their opposition. If only everyone in the country was like you, then they could abolish democracy altogether.

Thankfully, some of us actually give a crap, which is why the system still exists. If Obama wins and fails to live up to his promises, I'll be there to remind him. And if McCain wins, I'll be there to fight him. You, however, have conceded that the government is going to be corrupt no matter what, so adamantly that I'm convinced a corrupt government is what you're hoping for.

So since the government at risk of coming to be through your own selfish apathy will care about you just as much as you cared about it, I think you forfeit your right to complain. Really, if you didn't care enough to get off your butt just once in four years, why should I believe you care enough to stay informed on the status of said government? Apathy gets from the government what apathy gives to it: a big load of nothing.

[Uniform Two Six]

No, the kind of anarchy he's talking about is not simple apathy. It's a political (and to an extent economic) theory. The problem is that it's a theory that has even less validity than Marxism. It works in theory -- but only as long as you make a whole buttload of assumptions that do not even resemble reality. In a sense theoretical utopian anarchy works sort of like a commune writ-large. Everyone works towards the well-being of all, but does so out of altruism rather than self-interest, or in another sense, by doing so, they gain because everyone else is (theoretically) doing so as well. The important part being that (once again theoretically) nobody falls through the cracks because of this pervasive sense of community, nor does anyone benefit disproportionately since there is no exploitation being that everyone is reliant upon everyone else. You don't need government (or corporations or all the other evil things of modern society) since everything is brought down to a more managable level relying only upon local populations producing goods and services locally.
It's basically a 60s hippy's wet-dream.

Mutualism and social contract. This is the idea

Uh, social contract? Hello? That's essentially the heart of government (at least in theory).

But to suggest basic human natures rule our society is ignoring the manner in which we already operate.

Huh? Okay, look. Capitalism is founded upon greed. That's why it works so well. Representative republicanism (often mislabeled "democracy") is also based upon self-interest. Competing self-interested parties eventually reaching some kind of consensus that benefits the majority. It's all about rewarding greed and self-interest. Is it perfect? Of course not. But you've got to work with what you actually have. Reward greed and self-interest, and you can actually achieve results. But pretending that human beings will act in ways that are inconsistent with human nature (i.e. inherently self-interested) will only lead you to frustration. The communists found this out the hard way, and what you're proposing is even more radical than anything Marx ever came up with.

[Wselfwulf]

No offence taken. And I mean none, either. For me, political theory is rigorous and interesting, and fundamentally important. When I first pitched in, it was sort of tongue-in-cheek. I am surprised at the reaction.

You, Terastas, are exhibiting the kind of self-motivated inclusivity that you are rubbishing me for expecting in people. Surely one needn't be saintly, but should aim, upon disagreements, to some para-fabianistic reform. All who involve themselves in the mostly storybook buzz word campaigns, while still being wary (and rightly so), are aiming for this to some degree. If an anarchist tried to maintain a state of no government by force, this would indeed be a contradiction. The point is anyone trying to build the power vacuum has no right to it. It is gained and earnt by force, and is undeserved

Why should I expect humanity to chip in when I don't put in two cents? Your assumption is that my two cents involves hand-picking someone else to affect my life based on his agendas. I am relinquishing part of my autonomy. My two cents, rather, is learning and then suggesting paths to take for climate change, unemployment rates, povert and debt, inflation. I suppose I have succombed in a sense - these are merely the hot topics shoved down our throat, not to belittle their importance. Furthermore, apart from the fundamental reasoning error of justifying wrong by the wrong of another, you shouldn't assume I sit around complaining. This is an assumption based on no knowledge. You needn't accuse me of apathy, not that I want anything from the government.

Of course currupt authorities love my kind. They rest easy knowing they have a safety blanket consisting of demographics that want someone elses power to raise them up, that will flock to them, fearing no one to hold their hand. Demographics far more encompassing than simply 'the intelligent and the ignorant', so don't think this is smug - it's a bit of claim really.

And Uniform Two Six, You have described anarchosyndicalism rather well, despite being rather dismissive, maybe leaving a lot of hippies a little bummed. The assumptions underlying anarchosyndicalism are not as preposterous as you allude, but I personally haven't taken them straight down as goals. I imagine you mean things like the need for volunteers etc.

Social contract was not the heart of government (it is two individuals realizing agreeing to cease hostilities for mutually assured safety), unless using purely Hobbesian logic. In this sense, yes, the contract was setting up a greater power structure to keep individuals in a state of nature in check. However, as the critisism goes, a conctract holds no weight in a state of nature, so no legitimate disarmament could be performed without fear of reprisal. This, in essence, is what we see. Police forces and laws, yet no matter who you are a way can be found to screw you out of your wellbeing. Does the solution still lie in heirarchy, then?

I concede capitalism is largely motivated by greed, and even other human natures such as security. What I was getting at was if basic human nature ruled our social behaviour, there would be no charity, volunteering, foreign aid, perhaps no need for accessible education. These things, of course, exist. There are any number of roads you could go down, but only a hardline cynic would link them to egoism. A cynic of that caliber probably wouldn't like government too much either.

Edit: Er, perhaps if you wish to pick this apart it should be taken to a new thread. I feel like I am hijacking this thread a little.

[Uniform Two Six]

Does the solution still lie in heirarchy, then? ... A cynic of that caliber probably wouldn't like government too much either.

Yeah. I am cynical. I don't like government. Nobody does. No government and total individual freedom does sound like a good thing. The problem is that most of these political theories are thought up in the ivory tower fantasyland where everything is simple and human beings are inherently rational. The problem arises when you try to apply this theory in the real world. If you don't like government, that's fine, but you still have to figure out what you're going to replace it with. If you want to replace it with nothing, no government, no central political authority and no economic center, you wind up with anarchy. The term "anarchy" is commonly viewed by most people as an analogy for chaos and disaster -- and for good reason. You can theorize about a perfect or theoretical anarchy all you want, but at some point you've got to deal with the real world. In the real world, an absence of government leads to chaos and suffering -- every time. So yes, the answer does indeed lie in hierarchy. If you don't really understand this, then I again suggest you go to a place where there is no central authority. We call them "failed states".

[Terastas]

Does the solution still lie in heirarchy, then? ... A cynic of that caliber probably wouldn't like government too much either.

Yeah. I am cynical. I don't like government. Nobody does. No government and total individual freedom does sound like a good thing. The problem is that most of these political theories are thought up in the ivory tower fantasyland where everything is simple and human beings are inherently rational. The problem arises when you try to apply this theory in the real world. If you don't like government, that's fine, but you still have to figure out what you're going to replace it with. If you want to replace it with nothing, no government, no central political authority and no economic center, you wind up with anarchy. The term "anarchy" is commonly viewed by most people as an analogy for chaos and disaster -- and for good reason. You can theorize about a perfect or theoretical anarchy all you want, but at some point you've got to deal with the real world. In the real world, an absence of government leads to chaos and suffering -- every time. So yes, the answer does indeed lie in hierarchy. If you don't really understand this, then I again suggest you go to a place where there is no central authority. We call them "failed states".

Beat me to it.

You might want to think of anarchy as some peace-loving hippie philosophy, but the reality would be closer akin to something straight out of Road Warrior. Roving gangs and organized crime entities lording over everyone else as they please; that is the true spirit of anarchy.

EDIT: And back on topic:
The Real McCain.

[Wselfwulf]

Interesting. You would love individual freedom, love a lack of government, but theorize about it's inevitable unfeasibility? In your eyes, you select the lesser of two evils? Am I right in these assumptions? A brutish gang would exert their unopposable collective might over others in order to be safe, prosperous and powerful themselves in arnarchy? Wait, doesn't that describe the government?

To claim that 'every time' a governmentless state fails is an oversight. I could rudimentarily spit out examples of Spanish Civil war communes but it is probably better to see a secondary source with a better explanation and a good attempt at less bias than myself. The dubiously titled link:

http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm

and particularly the article "Have there been any historical examples of anarchist societies?". It is not primarily an advocacy, so you should not 'hate' reading it. I find it interesting that oftentimes the shortcomings of the historical examples, such the the anarchist communes in the example above, tend to be negative influences of power.

And I take your criticism of 'hippie' dreams on the chin, because you have missed the esscence of pacifism here. Not all anarchists agree on pure pacifism but obviously within the boundaries of their own freedom. The article states it rather funnily...'If on the other hand "utopian" simply means that anarchism could work if and only if all people were virtuous, and thus in practice would lead to the imposition of new forms of oppression, then the question is more interesting. Interesting, because this is more or less the charge that different types of anarchists frequently bring against each other'.

Then there are weaker but still interesting examples such as :

http://blog.mises.org/archives/002756.asp

I mean, give them a cursorily look because it is hard to tell from your dismissiveness if you have more than rudimentary stereotypes but no interest. I say this in full knowledge of some strong, uncountered agruments you have put forward, I simply don't think they imply the passing on of my power to another. Have you looked at minarchy, for example? I don't take much stock in it but at least it attempts to solve the issue of egoism.

Edit: I didn't really mention classic examples like the French revolution. They were more anarchy in essence rather than in practice.

[Terastas]

http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm

These people made the exact same mistake you have: the assumption that "anarchist" and "libertarian" are synonyms, and consequently, that anarchy is a legitimate form of government. Libertarianism defines a political philosophy that the best government is one which is minimal in its influence. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of government completely: no influence, no social structure, no economy, nothing. It's one thing to say the government has no right passing laws concerning issues that are either trivial or personal, it's another thing entirely to say that government should not exist altogether.

[Wselfwulf]

http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm

These people made the exact same mistake you have: the assumption that "anarchist" and "libertarian" are synonyms, and consequently, that anarchy is a legitimate form of government. Libertarianism defines a political philosophy that the best government is one which is minimal in its influence. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the absence of government completely: no influence, no social structure, no economy, nothing. It's one thing to say the government has no right passing laws concerning issues that are either trivial or personal, it's another thing entirely to say that government should not exist altogether.

Hey, whoa. Read it a bit more thoroughly. It strongly differentiates between the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-capitalists. It defines anarchy differently to you as well. There is plenty of bias in these articles but your definition is thick with it. Who said anarchy implies no social structure? You are confounding society with government. A-capitalists would even disagree about your 'no economics' claim, and extensive works are cited at that site explicating that idea. You seem to be holding on to a negative definition that is easy to ridicule without dealing with any arguments put forward or engaging with any literature (who do not like your definition, if I may seem forward. Where did you get that definition, if I may ask? And I don't think I have confused anarchy with libertarianism. If I have, point it out, but I have been clear about my stance on authority, not so much on socialism or libertarianism.

[IndianaJones]

Screw the 2008 Elections. War is coming again!

[Set]

For anyone from other countries reading this: how are things over there? Any better than this screwed up s*** the States has for laws and government? And in case ya don't know much about us, here's some examples.

We don't have standards. We just...don't. Laws vary from state to state, and are often useless. There is - I kid you not - one state where it is a LAW that you "can't bring a horse into a bar unless it's wearing pants". What genius thought that one up? Why?

In the state I was raised in (land of Bibles, plantations, rednecks, and single digit IQs) we have these stupid little things called Blue Laws. They're pretty much designed as an attempt to FORCE people to go to church. Of course, you can't actually be arrested for not going, so they try to make things as difficult as possible for people who don't. I can't walk into Wal-Mart on a Sunday and buy anything but food before 1 PM. No one sells alcohol on Sundays, period. Another fun one: "You can't have a tattoo parlor within so many feet of a church". Since you can't spit and NOT hit a church (I'm not f*** kidding, they're everywhere, kind of like cockroaches) we don't have a single one IN THE ENTIRE STATE. It's a collection of irritating stupidity and I'm damned sick of it.

Our taxes aren't even consistent. Sales tax is 6% in South Carolina, 7% in Georgia. In Ohio you don't pay taxes on food, in SC you pay taxes on everything. Even the IRS doesn't agree with itself. Some guy sent in the exact same form to different parts of it, and every one he got back was different. Lovely, no?

For Ra's sake, someone needs to fix this.

[Wselfwulf]

The sad thing is that in the places where this regressive idiocy takes place the majority often agrees with it. They can appeal to a government that is either sympathetic to their agenda or prefers the favour of the majority and bang, you have a law.

[Terastas]

Where did you get that definition, if I may ask? And I don't think I have confused anarchy with libertarianism. If I have, point it out, but I have been clear about my stance on authority, not so much on socialism or libertarianism.

Absence of government. A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're not talking about anarchy, rather endorsing a libertarian/communistic approach and calling it anarchy.

Titles, however, do not define the government. While they were in office, Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro both held the title of President, but the title didn't make their governments any more of a Democracy, did they? What you're doing is more or less the same thing: romancing anarchy by describing libertarianism and calling it anarchy.

Libertarianism I can understand, and to some extent, agree with. True literal anarchy, on the other hand, I object to. Seriously, spend a week or two in the Congo or Rwanda and just try and tell me then that anarchy is such a wonderful thing.

[Wselfwulf]

Okay. I think I am following you. I disagree though that this is boiling down to a semantic misunderstanding. If we agree on the same sorts of structures or ideals that should model societial structure, it doesn't matter if I call it anarchy and you call it libertarianism. But you are accusing me of suggesting anarchy as used colloqiually is what I think is so great. It's root in greek and it's initial usage have nothing to do with chaos, disorder or violence. Used perjoratively it takes on the characteristics you accuse it of.

You already accused me of dressing up libertarianism as anarchy. No need to say it again, just point out where I have done that, as I asked. Where, for example, do I endorse the privatisation of business? That's ludicrous if I do not accept even a minimalist government. Perhaps the approach I have given (one of a few) can be described a 'libertarian/communistic approach' but it is a branch (for a syndicalist) not the same thing. A little like democracy.


There is a political and colloqial meaning to democracy as well. Colloqially, it is the concept that 'the people decide'. But it's literal structure is a strange oligarchy of the wealthy and political parties. I'm sure I would not like Rwanda or the Congo. I similarly do not like our situation. I am forced to accept one or the other? Again, this shouldn't be purely definitional saying Somalia or Rwanda is in a state of anarchy - they both lack institutionalized rule but have had different outcomes. I seem to mean one thing while you mean another.

Am I right in saying, either way, you are accusing me of a sort of idealism? maybe even , utopianistic? It could easily be an unreasonable assumption that individuals work together (look at Romero's films, for example) but I think it is idealistic of you to assume someone given great power will use it in a collectively pleasing manner. To quote Rothbard "the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." You are, by handing money and allegiance to the government, giving them the weapons with which to extort more money and obedience from you.

And I appreciate your fervour in responding rather than ignoring.

[Midnight]

For anyone from other countries reading this: how are things over there? Any better than this screwed up s*** the States has for laws and government?

Your examples are definitely screwed up (although there are enough similarly screwed up laws in other countries - for example, New Zealand still has a state religion (we automatically have the head of the Anglican Church as our Head of State), and I am constrained from what actions I take during certain days of the year solely due to the requirements of that religion), but what really brasses off quite a few of my friends who happen to be American is the complete incompetence of so many organisations they have to deal with in real life. Not just government departments (your IRS form example would be at the lower end of the stupidity scale I've seen. Seriously.) but big companies. Things aren't wonderful in the rest of the world either (as anyone who's had to deal with a helpdesk that can't find a single staff member who can speak intelligible English can tell you) but I also hear of people in America who've had incredible trouble with service and organisational policies (both as a customer and as a customer service person) that people here in New Zealand simply wouldn't tolerate. It would be "letter to the paper" or "letter to the MP" time.

But this is also just part of a bigger picture. Now I'm going to step a bit outside of my area of knowledge so don't be too surprised if I get things wrong. Anyway, this is the way I see things, without a great deal of knowledge of the minutiae of economics but with a decent amount of knowledge of the 20th century (having been interested in history and actually having lived through most of the last third of it):

This shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to current events, but the American empire is on its last legs. Just like the British empire was in the 1930s, or the Russian empire was in the 1970s. Yous have had a good run, but you need to realise it's over. At the moment America has two options: to fade into genteel decrepitude like Britain, or to descend into fascism like Russia. For all our sakes, I'm hoping for the former.

Paradoxically, it's this twilight of the American empire which will, hopefully, tide you through what's going on in the markets at the moment. In 1929, America was fairly much the engine of the international economy. Today, it isn't. It's hanging on to a faded dream of a past it can't return to. China is the new superpower - the world just hasn't realised that, as the world hadn't realised how strong America was becoming in the early 20th century. When the markets hit rock bottom, it shouldn't have anywhere near as devastating an effect on the rest of the world as when the markets hit rock bottom some time around 1930 - 1931 had. And it's the rest of the world that, simply by still being there, are going to enable America to pull itself out of its current crisis. Now, if China had a market meltdown like America's been having, then the financial systems of the entire world would end up neck deep in the proverbial, as they did in the 1930s.

And as for anarchism? As a political idea it's no better and no worse than any other idea. But, as with any other pure ideas, it's utterly impractical in the real world. The same argument goes as for all the other ones - as the failure of Russian Communism is waved away with "but there aren't any pure communist societies", and the impending failure of American Capitalism will be waved away with "but there aren't any truly free markets", so there have never been any pure anarchies. This is quite simply because any group of more than one human would develop its own hierarchy, thus ceasing to be an anarchy.

[Wselfwulf]

is quite simply because any group of more than one human would develop its own hierarchy

If I thought this was some inevitable truth I wouldn't be an anarchist. It's unwarranted.

[Terastas]

To quote Rothbard "the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian." You are, by handing money and allegiance to the government, giving them the weapons with which to extort more money and obedience from you.

You're forgetting that:
A) Democracy allows us to choose our leaders (assuming they want the job, of course).
B) The people may hold the government accountable for their failures and shortcomings.

Like I said, I chose Obama because I consider him the best of the bunch, not just a better choice than McCain, but a better choice than all the Republican and Democratic primary campaigners (with the exception of Richardson, but since he dropped out early since a lot of people clearly didn't share my opinion, Obama became my close second). I also said that if Obama is elected and refuses to address any of his campaign promises, we the people will hold him accountable for it.

Theoretically, Bush could vote to abolish Democracy, but how long would you expect him to live afterwards (we still have the right to bare arms, don't we?)? The people are ultimately the power structure, and a democratic government's rate of corruption is limited to how much the people are willing to tolerate. That is especially true in America, a country that was born out of a revolution.

That's the problem China is ultimately going to have to face up to. The Chinese government is one that wants all the financial benefits of capitalism without the expense; also the respect and admiration of a democracy with the power of a separatist dictatorship. It's not easy to see from here since the Chinese lead the world in censorship, but you can still see it beginning already in Tibet etc.

Which brings me to Midnight's comments. . . And, well, no offense Midnight, but are you sure that's not just wishful thinking on your part? I've heard those sentiments many times before, but this is the first time I've been told such by someone that wasn't French or British and proud of it. Yes, Britain was a world power much greater than the U.S., as were France, Germany, pretty much half the countries in Western Europe had greater assets than the U.S. Assets which they absolutely squandered by bombing the living crap out of each other in two separate world wars, during both of which the U.S. only intervened in when they were dragged in (WWI after the German telegraph to Mexico, WWII after the bombing of Pearl Harbor). That left the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as the only world powers left, the latter of which tried to stack itself up on a big load of nothing much the same way China is doing now and collapsed on itself.

Will the United States, and possibly its constitution, look different in the near future when (*knock wood*) Obama/Biden are elected and Bush, Cheney and all the other corporate meat-puppets in the House and Senate (all of which are going to be held accountable for their actions during their next elections) are kicked out of office? Most likely, but that doesn't mean it's the end.

[Wselfwulf]

I think this is a fair enough line to take. You are the arbiter of your leaders. If they abuse their power, you will be there to stop them. But I'm going to have to accuse you of idealism on this point.

In the first place, if you are poised to resist the authority that slips up or opposes commonsense and goodwill, and only if they slip up, why call them authority in the first place? Why not have your opinion be the direct funnel for action rather than indirect, through government, if you suggest it all comes back to the opinion of the people. Summarily, if you will hold him accountable for anything you (I assume you mean some sort of majority) do not want, why have him make the calls in the first place? for any point in your proposition B) the act of 'holding accountable' has no effect on reality unless an act of anarchy, that is, not recognizing the ultimate authority of government, takes place.

But unfortunately you ignore activism and the opposition of government is, at best, a mixed bag of success and deceit. On the one hand, activism, peaceful protest, fabianism, utilization of the media or whatever you think you will do to hold Obama or some other politician 'accountable' for failing to comply with the demands of the people is often unsuccesful. For us, John Howard made explicit that there would be no GST. In comes John howard, in comes the GST, and so too does the rapid wave of complaint and protest. Strangely, John Howard held office for a record number of terms. Rudd, among a forgotten list of other things, promised lower interest rates. We vote him in, we have record interest rates, inflation, unstable markets. I am lashed on both sides by the cost of housing an dliving and university fees. Home ownership is as idealistic as thinking the government would help. On the other hand, government might allow one concession while introducing two new restrictions, or keeping an overarching one. But if you felt as if they were 'influenced' you might believe you had some power. I would say you were decieved. Of course, you have the right to bear arms. So long as the government doesn't decide otherwise and send in police to take them away. What then? From your cold dead fingers?

Looking at Obama's often vaguely articulated positions and pipe dream policy. Where do you suppose he will get the revenue to boost education, welfare, security and military do the progressive degree he suggests? From the toil of consumers? Who will have the priorities to oppose questionable policy if they have to work 40+ hours to stay afloat and pay for flying machines of destruction, elitist educational curriculum or big brother surveillance technology, supposing this is suddenly what we recieve rather than what we were promised. This is not to say I give any credence to, say the draconian Mcain. But as lovely as Obama's agenda's sound, this man is not necessary and for me not desirable as a means to achieve them. As you said, the power is in the hands of the people. But when you suggest the people rising up and holding the parties 'accountable', I see this as either fanciful or some unachievable metaphor for change, like the french rising up and beheading the nobles. It does not happen when the nobles have the police force and your fingerprints in a database.

[Uniform Two Six]

That left the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as the only world powers left, the latter of which tried to stack itself up on a big load of nothing much the same way China is doing now and collapsed on itself.

Sadly, I'd have to disagree with you. The Soviets had this very bizarre concept that not having a functioning economy didn't matter as long as you had the biggest, baddest military on the planet. That was their fatal mistake. The Chinese are absolutely not following the Soviets' lead. They have a powerful military only by dint of the fact that they can afford it due to their runaway economic success. Granted, their economy is disproportionately slanted towards manufacturing, making it very susceptable to market fluctuations. I think Midnight is right. We're past our prime, though don't count us out just yet. Almost all of the commercial software is coded in the United States, and we've still got a fair bit of heavy manufacturing. Caterpillar still does pretty well in the world market and if you're buying large commercial jets, you've got a choice between Airbus (technically French, but in reality is farmed out to much of Western Europe), and Boeing.

For us, John Howard made explicit that there would be no GST. In comes John howard, in comes the GST

Make an exception for any campaign promises any candidate for election makes about taxation. The last candidate we had here that told the truth to the electorate about taxes was Walter Mondale in 1984. He lost to Regan in one of the biggest landslides in U.S. history -- and the reason most people gave why they voted that way was Regan promised lower taxes. Nobody will ever run on a platform of increased taxation again regardless of economic reality. I doubt things are any different in Australia. Oh, and for those of you in the U.S. gearing up for the big election here -- Nobody you can vote for will lower your taxes. Both will raise them. Eight years of Bush II have insured that it is now a necessity, unless any of you actually believe that neoconservative bulls**t about raising revenue by lowering tax rates. I can't believe thay actually gave us that line with a straight face. Either they have a very dim view of our intelligence, or they actually believed their own press, which would make them the greatest morons of the last hundred years.

[Gevaudan]

Wselfwulf, how can you accuse Terastas of idealism when you yourself are proposing this if we vote in Obama:

Where do you suppose he will get the revenue to boost education, welfare, security and military do the progressive degree he suggests? From the toil of consumers? Who will have the priorities to oppose questionable policy if they have to work 40+ hours to stay afloat and pay for flying machines of destruction, elitist educational curriculum or big brother surveillance technology, supposing this is suddenly what we recieve rather than what we were promised.

I think you're stretching Obama's main points a little bit too far. Sure, politicians change their minds depending on the circumstances, but one man is not going to change the system of checks and balances that hold our country in place. We have 3 branches of government strictly so that not one person decides every single aspect of society, economy, laws, etc. The 540 people in Congress (all from different states and territories and from the laws within those regions), the whole Federal Court System (consisting of the 9 members of the Supreme Court as well as 11 courts of appeals, and the numerous courts of law across the country), and the Executive Branch (the president, the vice president, the countless members of the agencies, and 21 members of the Cabinet whom are subject to change come Election Day) are all not going to agree on exactly the same thing under the same circumstances with the same point of view. The whole point of our country was to not be ruled by an overbearing authority. The Constitution was written not only as an execution of key themes of the Enlightenment, but to serve as the foundation of a country that everyone within that country (and several without) was confident would be in power for an extended period of time. These people purposefully divided power because they knew through history that giving too much power to one state or ruler or monarch would not benefit the people.

Praise Machiavelli all you want, but we are proof that a country can still survive divided without relying on one ruler for complete unity. However you want to split us up (North and South, pro-life or pro-choice, Red or Blue, division of local power to the states, or the 3-way split of power in US government), the fact of the matter is that we are still here. Frankly, there have times when certain people have implemented detrimental and often disastrous policies to the economy, diplomacy, and social concerns of our country (i.e. Bush/Cheney administration). That is why one of the first regulations mentioned in the Constitution is to hold an election every four years (in fact, it is Clause 1, Article Two). The Founding Fathers (forgive me for using the term) recognized from the European powers the danger of having one person or family in power for too long, so they divided the power to four-year terms and allowing any natural-born citizen over 35 to run. This isn't as limiting as you might think, even considering the two-party system that has emerged today. Later Amendments to the Constitution limited executive terms to two per person and allowed women and ethnic groups to vote. If any of our rights in the Constitution were changed, we would certainly notice, and the people in power would notice even more and take action, because not everybody shares the same opinions (fundamental human nature right there). The chances of everybody in power (at a rough minimum of 3000 people) deciding to change one aspect of the Constitution that would clearly be noticed by the people (say, changing the 5th Amendment to force people to testify under oath), based on similar if not the same opinions, is astronomical.

[Terastas]

Summarily, if you will hold him accountable for anything you (I assume you mean some sort of majority) do not want, why have him make the calls in the first place?

So you're saying I shouldn't vote for him because he could be lying? Anyone could be lying. Maybe Obama is lying and wants to raise taxes. Maybe I'm actually going to vote for McCain. Maybe you will too. And hey, maybe Anthony Brownrigg has no intention of making Freeborn. We won't know until they are actually in a position to do so.

You once again jumped straight to the conclusion that all politicians are liars by default, the very pigheaded outlook I was venting about pages earlier. Just because someone's lips are moving does not mean he is lying. That was an absolutely selfish and egotistical assessment on your part and you know it. Do you even have a point, or are you just trying to get the last word in?

And for the record, Obama has promised to raise taxes. . . For companies that outsource jobs overseas. Which, frankly, is something I remember suggesting back in 2004: a system of taxes and tariffs combined with our minimum wage laws ensuring that corporations who attempt to do business in the U.S. either pay our wages or the taxes that pay our welfare.

As for China, it wasn't their economy I was referring to, rather the treatment of their citizens. If you ask me, China's regard for their workforce reminds me less of Soviet Russia and more of Southern slave plantations: work em' to death, because if one of em' does die, you can always get a new one. Soviet Russia fell apart, not so much because they lacked an economy in the literal sense, but ultimately because the Russian citizens figured out that everyone from the back-breakers to the underachievers all got the exact same pay at the end of the day and so production in the U.S.S.R. dwindled down to next to nothing.

China's problem is similar in that their corporations are able to achieve such high profits because they can buy and sell at the same level as the U.S. and Europe while paying next to nothing for cheap child sweatshop labor where, as I just said, they don't care if someone gets sick and dies because they can just get a new one. The Chinese economy will essentially collapse on itself just like the U.S.S.R. did as soon as the lower class turns emo and stops working.