The two parties dilemma; Strange?

Well a completely inefficient government won't really do anything at all and that's not very good if we take it to the extreme. There's a tradeoff. Which is why a lot of countries with PR has a lower limit of 3-5% that a party must have to gain any seats in the parliament. Else you may end up with 20 groups trying to agree on things. Which is very unlikely to work smoothly.

Can you (or EZ-2789) give specific examples that show why this is bad?

Okay. In most cases a group of parties join together and hopefully they will have >50% of the votes. This isn't always the case though and in those situations the other groups can and will often vote down most things that the government want to do making the government useless. Many parties increases the chance of minority governments.
One problem is that the groups of parties who plant to work together need to agree how and what they will do under their years in power which isn't exactly easy if you have 10 different opinions. Another problem is that things happen in the world over time. Even if they come to an agreement now they may not agree in a year and then the government won't be able to hold it self together. It basically just gets messy when there's too many sides and it's hard to get anything done.

There's also one general problem with the PR system, say we have one side of three communist parties that has 48% and another side of two conservative parties who has 47% then there's a single party who has 5% who doesn't really care that much which side they work with. This party get's a tremendous amount of power despite having so few votes because the side this party sides with get's rule and it can there for make a lot of demand and do most of the things they want to do with the country - despite only having 5% of the votes

Being efficient means being able to pass laws. The most important part of a government is the ability to pass legislation and enforce it. If you can't get past the "passing of legislation" part, then what the hell is your government doing?

That's the downside of PR. And I'm not trying to make it seem like Plurality is the way to go, because it's not. Neither of these systems are perfect; the strength of one is the weakness of the other. PR allows for a more equal distribution of seats, but creates a legislature full of so many views that consensus becomes hard to build, and the necessary majorities needed to pass laws are rarely met. In contrast, Plurality creates a more efficient system where one of two parties has a majority, but at the cost of a large number of wasted votes and the exclusion of smaller parties that may add diversity of opinion.

You have to sacrifice something either way you go. What you gain from one you lose for the other and vice versa. It's a no-win situation.

If the governments biggest concern is to efficiently pass legislation, regardless of what the people want, then this government might as well be a monarchy. The whole reason we aren't a monarchy is so that the people can have a say in how the government functions.


My government has laws to protect myself and my property, and has officers to enforce these laws. My government provides my community with public schools, parks, rec centers, libraries, and roadways. My government provides police officers and firefighters stationed near me. My government provides me protection from foreign nations through a standing army.

Controversial legislation (such as welfare, healthcare, SOPA, drug wars) are not absolutely necessary for a government to function. would you agree with that?
To say "we need inaccurate representation to pass these laws" is just absurd. If the people do not want a legislation to be passed, then it should not be passed.

We live in an ever-changing world. The purpose of giving government the ability to pass legislation is so that they can ensure that the rights and freedoms that we were granted when the Constitution was drafted are being protected even as our world changes. What happens then when there's no laws against new threats that weren't there before, such as cyber terrorism or identity theft? If you have a government that can't deliver when it needs to, then you're fucked. You want that?

I get the feeling that you think I'm defending those that are currently in power in our government right now. I'm not. What I'm saying is that even if we switch to PR, things aren't necessarily going to be better. They'll be different, but whether or not the actual situation will improve is completely up to circumstances beyond our control. We as voters only get to choose who's in the government. We can't tell them what to do once they're there.

No. I think multiple parties are just hindrance.

Take Thailand for example.....

It seems the topic has swayed a little...

You'd be surprised. The majority of voters are already locked into party voting. Some people are lifelong Democrats and will never vote for an independent or a Republican same for some lifelong Republicans.




I don't follow the Libertarian philosophy lock step but, it is the most accurate description for my beliefs.



You claim to be fiscally conservative and yet, you didn't even know the basics.




That's a complex issue that is much deeper than you are making it out to be.



You labeled yourself fiscally conservative and didn't even know what it meant. You should take the time to do more research to avoid these kinds of situations in the future.

Ok...That's not me, that's not you...it's not anyone I know, and from what I've seen on the forum, it doesn't reflect anyone on this forum either. So yeah, I know SOME people are staunch republicans or democrats, with no reverence to issues, but I already said, the people who do that, which I DON'T feel are the majority of people, are simply idiots.



Ok, I know you call yourself a libertarian, I was talking about me. I don't call myself any one thing because no one thing is a good description of me, unless it's a vague description of my approach to issues, and not my actual position on issues as a general whole.




Poor phrasing. When I said I'm fiscally conservative, what I meant was "What we have now as far as economic policy is ok, it just needs to be tweaked, not drastically overhauled." In other words, not the traditional stance that the word is a connotation for, but what the word literally means.



And the reason Wal Mart is doing so well? Because the vast majority of people DON'T choose to not buy things from Wal Mart so they can support local stores. It's easy to say, "Well if everyone just acted like me, this wouldn't be an issue." But that's my main issue with libertarian and communistic political philosophies. Not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just making a point.



Because it's not the main point of my post. Safe to say, I just feel libertarianism doesn't have the right answers, and most libertarians that I talk to are rather naive in how much confidence they have in their proposed system and strange "If we just did THIS, that'd fix soooooo much." ideas.

Unfortunately, I've met a lot of this type of person in my political life. I went to an event yesterday with Ziggy and the entire room minus the dozen or so Ron Paul supporters were lock step Neoconservative Republicans. Johnny Isakson (Georgia Senator) was speaking and one non-Paul supporter confronted him about N.D.A.A and Isakson tried to justify the bill being passed with the clause to the resounding applause to the rest of the audience. There are 200+ people in my country alone who are lock step Republicans. I can only imagine how many lock step Democrats there are here.

It's really easy to find out who these people are. If the state doesn't require registration with a specific political party to vote then you simply call the local Republican or Democrat office and ask how many members they have registered with them. It's not 100% but, it's a general ballpark of how many people will always vote Dem or Republican.






If you believe believe that "government intervention is the best way to bring about economic equality and development". Then you're an Economic progressive. If you disagree with government intervention you are an Economic liberal(Aka Fiscal Conservative). Political word games are fun aren't they?



Both Libertarianism and Communism require a shift in the thinking process which doesn't happen overnight. If Libertarianism was to be properly implemented, it would have to be phased in gradually allowing the mentality of the people to shift from Government dependence to self reliance. Also the graduate shift would allow for private organizations to begin appearing that would take over the roles the government had. Honestly, the biggest hurdle for Libertarianism is not the economic policy but, the social policy. People need to stop thinking they can control other people because that person doesn't like what someone else is doing i.e. "there outta be a law against...."

Well that's unfortunate that you've met so many of those people. Though, I find it curious that you don't include Ron Paul supporters with "lock step" people.

I mean, you ARE aware it's fully possible, and even likely that there are some people out there that support Ron Paul lock step, simply because of his libertarian economic policy that they recognize as being 'libertarian' right? Just saying.



Quite. It's strange, I hate political word games enough to rarely comment on the subject of politics, and avoid politics almost altogether, yet I immensely enjoy philosophy and logical argumentation, which consist...mainly of word games.



But there ARE things there 'oughtta be a law against'.

Also, don't you think "Both Libertarianism and Communism require a shift in the thinking process, which doesn't happen overnight" is a rather throwaway statement?

In essence, what you're saying basically amounts to, "If everyone would just start agreeing with me, there wouldn't be an issue."

Since you're a Libertarian, I'm going to assume a political position you're probably against.

Let's say my philosophy is that the government ought to regulate everything.

Clearly, you think this is a bad idea, and to a point, I disagree with it as well. HOWEVER, if we all agreed the government ought to control everything...then we wouldn't be having an argument, would we? If we all simply agreed that the government ought to control everything, then all the problems that arise from it would be accepted compromises from everyone. No problem could happen that would change our minds UNLESS it was a paradigm shift where the government all of a sudden DOESN'T control everything.

What I'm saying, is that you can EASILY construct a political system that could theoretically work. The problem with this is that in order for most of those to work, everyone needs to agree with it. Everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to agree with everyone else as to what's right, what's preferable, and what needs to be done.

This is unrealistic. Which is why I feel political philosophies like libertarianism and communism won't ever work.

Ron Pauls supporters, at least the ones I associate with, support him because he represents what they hold valuable. If Dr. Paul suddenly changed and preached a different message they would leave him.

A "lock step' republican would be someone who would vote for anybody the Republicans nominated just because they are nominated by the RNC as the Republican presidential nominee. They'd vote Republican even if Ralph Nader or Donald Trump were the nominee.



You kinda missed the point I was making there. It was more like "There is someone doing something I don't like that doesn't negatively affect me in any significant way. There oughtta be a law". Social conservatives are guilty of that all the time.



When I said a shift in the thinking process. I didn't mean everybody agree on everything. Instead, it can be a simple statement where people say "Why do I sit on my ass an expect someone else to fix these problems? I should get out there and fix them myself". Right there, we don't all agree on everything but, instead people agree on one thing.

You say it can't happen in real life. Yet, you ignore the fact that originally government didn't provide all of these services to society. These agencies, laws and programs were phased in over time. Before SNAP, Medicaid and all these other programs. If people hit a rough patch, we helped each other out. It's still a fairly common occurrence in Iowa, a farmer gets hurt and his neighbors will come over and tend to his crops. When zig and I moved into our apartment. Our neighbor lost his job, we invited him over for dinner, took food up to him when we could. How often do you see other people doing that? It's not common anymore because we kick the can to the government and expect them to do it for us.

Sure, maybe it is "if everybody acted more like me"-ism but, I wanna prove that it can work so I live by example.

So you've systemically determined that Ron Paul supporters aren't lock step supporters. I personally know some Ron Paul supporters that support him, yet when I question them, they really don't know why...so yeah, those kinds of people ARE out there.



Well, let's say I see someone else being oppressed, but nobody is oppressing me. Should there not be a law against it just because I'm not being affected?

Say, for instance, that white people get preferential treatment, because people are being racists, as a whole, and treating non white people badly.

This doesn't negatively affect me in any way...does that mean there shouldn't be any laws against things like...segregation?



Well, that's a simple idea of what one ought to think in order for those philosophies to work, but if you think that's all it would take, you're sorely mistaken. In fact, unless there's a balance and check system within that philosophy, communism, for instance, falls apart.

[/quote]You say it can't happen in real life. Yet, you ignore the fact that originally government didn't provide all of these services to society. Before SNAP, Medicaid and all these other programs. If people hit a rough patch, we helped each other out. It's still a fairly common occurrence in Iowa, a farmer gets hurt and his neighbors will come over and tend to his crops. When zig and I moved into our apartment. Our neighbor lost his job, we invited him over for dinner, took food up to him when we could. How often do you see other people doing that? It's not common anymore because we kick the can to the government and expect them to do it for us.

Sure, maybe it is "if everybody acted more like me"-ism but, I wanna prove that it can work so I live by example.[/quote]

Fine, but it's still unrealistic. Yes, it's true we didn't always have medicaid and all that stuff, but you're not asking the question of why these things were provided in the first place. If it were true that people kept helping each other, then there really wouldn't have been a need for medicaid. the reason it was needed was because in big cities, in populated areas, the old, the decrepit, the helpless, were trodden over by the ones who wanted their jobs and all that. The reason things like medicaid and all that happened was because there really was an actual call for them.

Well Malaysia has that going on right now.

They originally had a few parties with Barisan Nasional(BN) being always the winner but last year when all the other parties had almost enough votes to overthrow BN, all the Opposition parties decided to join hands and now they're simply known as the Opposition.

Now, BN and the Opposition are arguing on a daily basis and you'll see political news EVERY FUCKING SINGLE DAY

I quoted the parts of your reply to Fiery on Page 2 that I felt was most important as I read it, and take no offense when I say: When I read it, I felt like hitting my head on the desk.

Libertarianism and Communism, you REALLY didn't go there did you? Do you realize you compared the anti-thesis of the other's existence as if they had similarities?
Let me lay it out for you clearly:

Libertarianism: The Political Theory of Self-Determinism, or in other words provided that you follow the law/basic conducts as a Human Being, it doesn't matter whether you're gay or straight, you smoke weed or pot. If a person overdoses and dies, the Libertarian does not all of a sudden make "laws" to prevent this. Because any law that is made does not prevent it from happening, but rather it restricts society and opens up the way for more draconian measures(IE: SOPA, NDAA coming after the Patriot Act). But rather, the Libertarian believes in society, in his fellow human beings.

Likewise, the Libertarian does not believe in compromising his ideals for an "ever-changing world", actually any decent human being would never compromise his ideals because the world around him changed. If his ideals were lawful and if they respected the rights to his fellow man, there's no reason for him to waver from his position.

Lundi: So too, the same must be said for the countrymen. This isn't a Political Theory or Stance as much as it is a stance of Humanism. If we are a country that empathizes free speech for all, and empathizes a free-market economy and active tourism, then even in the face of terrorism this must not wane. In fact, it goes a BILLION times more in this case, then it does for a singular person. For while the damage of a person losing his ideals is great in his personal life, it's even far more damaging if a country loses it's image.

The country that loses it's image is dead, never to return. The People cannot have faith in a homeland with no image, a homeland with no image cannot have a government that's honest and faithful to it's people.


Communism: Communism is an Anti-Humanist/Pro Corporate position, it masquerades under the guise of Liberalism but there's nothing Liberal about it. As we famously know, the Communist believes that if we strip all barriers and become One State then we would have achieved an optimal existence.

Theoretically that is true, but the question becomes: What is the State? Citizens have lost their individuality and their earning potential. So, are we all Americans? Not exactly, while it's made to look that way some of that extra income has GOT to go somewhere.

To the Government, which has become the De-facto state(see Stalin and Mao Mao and even today's Communist China.) As well as the economic lobbying hitmen who've existed throughout time who benefited largely from this system.

The flaw with Communism is that while it attempts to bridge people together, it does so by denying their individuality and thereby their self-determinism.

The flaw with Libertarianism is it's Lairezz-Faire position, while the people maintain their individuality and their self-determination they are not compelled(neither by morals or dignity and least by law) to come together and the State as a whole is fractionalized.

This was true in the advents of America's birth days, for we recall the states issuing different currencies and they didn't have that strong of an interest in working together. It was only when the Founders united the country under a flag and a constitution in 1787 when the Union began to take fold and become the country it could become.

Libertarianism's main flaw of not being about to bring the people together was solved through, yes, wait for it: Nationalism!

Fascism, then is the ideal form of government(and as such, it has been attacked by corporate political pundits). Because those same pundits wouldn't exist in a Fascist Government, neither would the Wall Street Speculators.

A True Fascist(Not a Neo-Nazi or a Skinhead. Someone who actually did research into the theory) understands the economy needs to be Nationalized, as well as everything else. The Nationalized Economy is strong, for his citizens are well employed, the confidence in the homeland is high and hence we could once again become productive consumers.


Those pundits do not enlighten the people, or generally anyone for that matter. They exist to spew government propaganda, they've no talent or capability in any manner. And yet they earn hundreds of thousands of dollars along with their titles, that IS a drain on our economy.

The Speculators, it goes without saying also drain our economy. The Fascist wouldn't have it, the Fascist's micromanagement is not one of Communist Dictatorship but instead it's "Feel free to do as you wish, just make sure it's actually productive".


This isn't just an economic philosophy, but it's the true political philosophy of a Fascist State. Do whatever you wish, just make sure that it's productive for yourselves and thereby for your country.

By focusing on our productivity, on our pride and heritage we can transform America. I was at first a Liberal actually, but then I became disaffected with the Liberal Movement and I was equally as disaffected with the Neo-Cons.

But then through taking a closer look through history, our Founders, Napoleon Bontaparte, the AXIS powers. They all seemed to have a strong National Hold that built their Nation State that IS sorely missing today.

We lack Pride, Intensity and Desire. That's what's wrong with America today. And I'm convinced that we aren't going to establish that pride in the 21st century with our flag, and our statue and our anthem(because all of these things are old-adage and like our country is virtually dead on water anyway)

If we had a New Anthem, a new flag can you imagine the excitement? Our ideals will always remain the same, but a country is like a product. Sometimes it has to be remarketted and repackaged. Especially in the light of corrosion and corruption eroding the first market brand.

Ok, so you felt like facepalming when you read what I said. Great. Now please don't take offense when I say I smashed my face on my keyboard after reading this long wall of text. I wasn't comparing them as if they had similarities, and, if you'd paid attention, FPOD acknowledged what I meant by that statement by saying it was true. What I'm saying isn't that they're the same philosophies, but that political philosophies like these require a vast paradigm shift in thinking that is on an unrealistic scale. FPOD only disagrees as to how unrealistic it is.



And in my opinion, that's a problem. you're not taking into account accidental overdoses, forced overdoses, prescribed overdoses as a result of incompetence on the doctor's part...there SHOULD be laws against these kinds of things. If you're saying libertarianism wouldn't make such laws, then great, all the more reason to reject it.



Tsk tsk, not being willing to compromise is the sign of a closed mind. Naughty libertarian.



Ok, now you have to define what it means to have lawful ideals, and what 'rights' belong to the fellow man that must be respected. you haven't done any of this. It's cute rhetoric, but you really should be clearer on your message, otherwise that's all it is.



Oooooh no no no, no it's not. Sorry, but that's not right at all. I'm a secular humanist, but I'm not a libertarian.



Which has been tried and failed.



Which we have without a libertarian society.



Not necessarily. Being amicable to change in the face of new, better ideas, or at least being open to discussion that maybe your political philosophy could be wrong, is a sign of strength, not weakness. It's a good thing to be open to change. But it's not a good thing to change for the sake of change. It's called being a moderate.



I'll chalk this up to you never having read Marx. The proletariat is the main focus of Communism, also known as...the workers...the people. It's an encouragement of all people working together without trying to advance beyond each other. Which, if we all agreed not to want to be better than each other, it'd work out great.



Yup, you have no idea what communism is. You know what modern day Maoism and Stalinism and Castroism and all that is, but you don't know what communism is. Karl MArx himself was very much against a government having power over the people. To date, there has never been a truly communistic society. Ever. So you can't look to other governments as examples, because none of them truly adopted Marx's views. they twisted and distorted them into state worship communism, instead of actual marxist communism.



Yup, and if we all agreed to simply accept our lot in life, it'd work out perfectly.



Good job at demonstrating EXACTLY what I said in the post you said you felt was stupid. I have to wonder if you paid any attention at all, or if you just picked out buzz words that your brain responded to.



You're advocating nationalism? Ugh. Nationalism is a bad thing. It doesn't bring people together. What it does is cause divisiveness. Sure, we're all americans under the same flag. But every state has their own flag, their own geographical position, and SCREW YOU! YOU'RE NOT FROM THE SAME LATTITUDE AND LONGITUDE AS ME!

...Get it?



...So Mussolini had the ideal government...is what you're saying.



A True Communist(not a Stalinist or a Neo-Maoist. Someone who actually did research into the theory) understands the economy needs to be socialized, as well as everything else. The Socialized Economy is strong, for his citizens are 10% employed, the confidence and work ethic are high, and hence we could once again become productive consumers.

C wot I did thar?




Holy crap, something we agree on. Still, there's a point to them, and some of them DO do their job somewhat well. There are some CNN and MSNBC reporters that do their job well enough.



And if it's not productive, we'll shoot you. :D




I know you like to think that your political philosophy is somehow the best, but that's naivety in the grandest way. I mean, do you REALLY think you have the one right answer to all our problems? If you really think that, more power to you, but I'm going to look at you as if you have a tin foil hat on your head.



Is that the same nationalism that led Napolean to sell us a giant chunk of his land for profit? Is that the same nationalism that led us to decide that what we had wasn't enough and we needed to take the land of others to become great? Is that the same nationalism that led Napolean to be...well..dethroned and exiled?



And the arguments about which flag presentation is better, and the arguments over which anthem sounds cooler or is more reflective, would tear each other apart. By the end of it all we might actually look at the new flag and anthem and say, "Goddammit, I don't want to see another one of those in my life."

I know you think you have it all figured out...but you're not even close.

[quote="BigLundi"]



It's not an unrealistic thing at all, provided you've some decency and self-respect for the rule of law. If we had respect for the rule of law, respect for ourselves and our country and our institutions(I hope this isn't too big of a concept for you to comprehend) then a Libertarian/Constitutional Republic society would work out just fine.

It sounds less authorizing and less daunting than trying to build a society in which we all become a collective borg hive with no individual Self-Determinism. But believe it or not, that's today's America. Your America.(Not mine, I abhor our political state)

The Current Administration and Parliament has agreed to give up it's constitutional authorities and is therefore little more than a puppet show(if it ever was anything BUT a puppet show to begin with. Hitler once theorized correctly after witnessing these debates first hand that these debates only impede political and thereby social progress and that it's but a self-serving institution.)

I want least of all to be called a "Hitlerlite" or any such junk, so I'll say now that there are obviously several things with which I disagree with heavily on that are obvious in Human Nature. I couldn't support those things and then say that I support Self-Determinism. One of the things that he was correct on, and especially in light of Constitutional Betrayal of the NDAA is this: Parliament is Useless. It serves not the interests of the people or even the state, but it's own interests at the hour and the whim.

Furthermore, the Political Existence of the Democrats and the Republicans is a major problem, as these parties do not preach American Idealism nor do they preach servitude. But rather, these parties are corporations who preach(force down your throat)their self-interested product and through propaganda have made you believe THEY are your only choice.

Because they don't care for our country, and our people there isn't a single Republican or Democrat, without exception that's worth holding office. They're too entrenched in corporate politics as well as their own self-interest.





I'll reference to the Slavery Problem when it existed at the time in the mid 1700's-to-1800's. The Founders regretted the decision to bring the Africans to America in the first place, let alone the slavery system that enslaved them. For it went against our ideals of Self-Determinism and Personal Freedom. And yet, the Founders did not force their beliefs on the people(IE: They did not, through government authority end slavery(Not until Lincoln and the result would be a divided society that would become even more divided at the turn of the end of the Second Civil War(IE: The Civil Rights Movement) and Vietnam.

They did not, precisely because they knew what would(and did happen). They knew that even if it took a long time, the correct decision through Self-Determinism is always better than the correct decision through the sword alone.





You like your hentai don't you? What if I said you're not allowed to read hentai/watch hentai anymore? You're willing to compromise that? Okay, you're not allowed to internationally date anymore. And SO on and so on.

Compromising your individuality IS NOT, can never be an actual "compromise" more than it is a sell-out of your individuality, a sell-out of this state.

Not willing to compromise yourself or your homeland is a sign of Patriotism, I know this might be a shock for you, who blindly followed the state like a sheep but there are times when the State is wrong(what a shock!), more often though it's because of the self-interested parties running the State.

To prevent these self-interested parties from accomplishing what they've accomplished in the last-10 years, we must never compromise ourselves or our state.
Benjamin Franklin himself acknowledged this.

Patrick Henry:Either give me Liberty or give me death!




The same rights that you want to have: Freedom to life, freedom to liberty, freedom to pursue happiness so long as you don't take away from the happiness of others or compromise this State(and this State is our homeland, so I think we should have a pretty good investment in keeping it uncompromised).

Life is not, and should not be as complicated as you would like to believe, and have been led to believe by government-sponsored media. Terrorism has won because of the complication of our lives. The TSA, the bomb threats, etc.

If our Founders faced terrorism(but they faced rebellion, Shay's rebellion in fact) do you know what their response would have been?

We will make whatever adjustments required but we also acknowledge that Self-Determinism, even to the point of Extremism is beneficial in that the people's right to express themselves always remains supreme above all else and they may even be right and we, as the oppressors may even be wrong.

That was their exact response to Shay's rebellion, whilst they quelled the rebellion they also acknowledged that Shay had a good point and hence they held a favorable position towards farmers and workers, which was for the Good of the State.





You cannot be a humanist(that is to say, respect human rights and right to existence) while utterly denying Self-Determinism. I'll agree with Fiery: You don't know WHAT you are. You, like most Americans have been brainwashed by that garbage they call our media and believe you hold a position. No, you hold a corporate position and you support the corporate puppet of your choosing all the meanwhile being blissfully unaware that you're supporting corporatism.




As in the old, "a man cannot be allowed to cry fire where there is none"? As well as Slander? That may very well be out of good intentions, but it's where good intentions start, that corporate statism begins. Free Speech should never be altered in anyway regardless of the circumstances.

But rather, it should be governed in a state of Self-Determinism, along with the understanding that we don't want to erode our Nation-State.





This statement can now convince me and Fiery that you take a media-led position and not one that came from any actual self analysis. We haven't had a free market since the mid-1960's! Like all else, Self-Determinism. With what, Welfare government over-spending from WW2 to the Vietnam days, affirmative action and most importantly Clinton's treasonous NAFTA legislation(this should be the reason for his impeachment, not the Lewinsky affair).

And no one in their right mind can call Bush's Corporate Communism(Trickle-down economics) or Obama's Government-sponsored takeover of GM and Chrysler(or the numerous bailouts and quantitative easings) as free-market anything! Nor can you call the premise of forced universal healthcare free marketing.





In the face of the TSA and the utter decline of the Tourist industry as well as the airway industry both to and from America and you can't possibly tell me we have a tourist economy. We have the theory of transportation now, we could engage in it but why subject ourselves to hell and misery? Who, exactly would want to come to this hell hole?




There is nothing moderate about advocating an Anti-Humanist position, even whilst in your case utterly not knowing how much of an anti-Humanist you are. You made a blanket statement here, which anyone would agree to. But in the context that you made it, I disagree. Changing your ideals and principles to "fit the times", leads you down that path in history you supposedly oppose. You oppose it, without knowing the reasons as to why it even transpired in the first place.





With the state, as the ultimate ginny pig. The People themselves unknowingly also suffer, for you cannot have a Communist Society as long as there is Progress(or in this case, so called "advancing beyond each other"). It would work out great: For the Political Elite Class. That, and for the weak-minded man who hates competition and drive and desires everyone elses labor. It is a slavery system, a true dictatorship system. Whether it was Marx spewing the garbage or Mao.




Oh, how cute the whole "That isn't really Communism" argument, you yourself said that it rejects the existence of both State and Man(or rather, man's potential) that IS what Communism is, there isn't a second or a third communist position. There's only one, a self-interested slavery corporate system. Whether you'd like to acknowledge the facts or not, doesn't change it's existence.





**Laughs**, In your own words my friend you just admitted to the economic corporate slavery system known as Communism. You can look at your individual and the state's weakness as some kind of deluded, sadist utopia but Modern Day America is actually proof of the communist society.

Let's take a look at the fruit's of Communist's labor, namely Welfare: Nice idea right, when you're struggling for the state to help you get back on your feet whilst you find a job. But unfortunately, there's some 300 million people in America and the funds have to be divided, these divided funds are more like the pieces of bread crumbs after the political elite/middle class ate the dinner.

In other words, there's no way in hell Welfare can help you back up. Back when prices weren't too inflationary, it wasn't all that bad(90's era), but in today's day and age Welfare can't even supplement a family for a month!

Not only that, but corporate and political warfare(50% of our infrastructure is sent overseas, we've become mostly an exporting nation and the average CEO makes 500 times the average American) has completely and utterly destroyed the state.




No, you said very specifically that both Libertarianism and Communism were radical ideas that would have to invoke a core change in our thought process in order to work.
Only, Libertarianism is not an idea or a concept, but a way of life. So as to make it firmly clear to even you: Communism rejects life in of itself! I'll agree with you on this: A Ron Paul Administration would likely be met with disappointments. Because there's more versions of you, then there are of me and Fiery. The Paul Revolution is mostly out of economic, not political concerns.

In the advent of a economic rebound, there won't be a massive support of Libertarian/Constitutional Republic philosophies but rather political contentment and disinterest. For, the problem has been solved!

Given the people's political apathy, as well as the utter lack of change in congress and parliament(give or take a few new corporate democratic-republican heads), it will be deemed that the Paul Administration, that Libertarianism failed.

Instead of the truth: The American People failed.






No, I don't get it. I don't subscribe to Anti-Nationalist Propaganda. A Real Nationalist has pride in his Nation-State, while acknowledging the same rights to other Nation-States. A Nationalist Society cannot occur so as long as there are those who reject the People, the Nation-State and the right to a Self-Determined Existence.

I think people already see themselves as Americans, rather than Texans or Pennsylvanians. But, by submerging the states political importance it would have been symbolic and through that symbolic energy, a new American State would have been born to exist for eternity.

A Politician or a Statesman cannot ascribe to Nationalism, for that means his own self-importance is negated, and instead his importance is the same as the homeland or the community. So understand that Political Opposition to Nationalism is a Corporate's attempt to maintain his hold over you, and over our collective citizenry.







This is a blanket statement meant to make me look like an extremist. 'If you believe said bad guy had the ideal form of government, your thoughts are then discredited.'.
If you believe you can deflate me with blanket statements, let me then say that you're sadly mistaken. The Political Revolutionary times of the 30's were so chaotic that decisions were made on a daily/yearly basis. As such, these decisions were not always correct.
No decent Human Being believes in manslaughter, or in discrimination. But what every decent Human Being believes in, if suppressed for the moment is that their fellow man and women are one with them. Every decent Human Being believes in Nationalism and ultimately, being with one who he shares a connection with.

Through our Individual Self-Determinism, there will then come a time where our individual blogs would have come together, whilst remaining separate and maintaining a healthy political union.





Yes, you copied my post slid in communism and once again made the absurd charge that Communism, or an Anti-Humanist thesis is comparable in anyway shape or fashion to a Nationalistic Self-Determinism Position.
For the last time: The "Socialized Economy" maintains that you'll work X number of hours, earn X amount of pay and if you don't like it: TOO BAD. Communism's manifesto is to eliminate Humanism to eliminate Humanity's flaws. Whereas Self-Determinism is to eliminate Humanity's flaws, by enhancing Humanity's strengths.
The difference between Libertarianism and Fascism, is that the Fascist recognizes the State is just as conscious as it's individuals, a pure Lairezz-Faire system dooms the state and inevitably in due time dooms the people(as such has occurred here in America).

The People, as self-evidenced through our own political apathy are not always the best ones to make decisions, if they even make a decision at all! But, once Humanity does make a decision(or a decisions is made for them), we tend to stay to that system steadfastly.
Then, a Centralized form of Government is the ideal government. Where, government is not filled by Political Statesmen or psuedo-experts, but instead government will be led by men and women who have the expertise in the specialized fields but most importantly: The desire to see their Nation-State and their families grow prosperously.
So as to make it clear: I would accept Nationalist-Libertarianism if I believed we had the support system to uphold it's flaws. But we don't have that support from the people here in the homeland, so instead a Pure Nationalism, a Fascist Government is necessary in America to deal with the challenges we face.
To re-awaken the pride in our homeland, to Nationalize our economy and our foreign policy objectives and to face terrorism, extremist threats without a blink of an eye, never yielding and fading and in that spirit we would have dealt our enemies the most crucial and most brutal of blows it ever suffered in this conflict. And to unite the homeland in a spirit of unity that won't be crushed by Corporate Politics.






So as to make myself utterly clear: I'm a firm supporter of the media, to quote John F.Kennedy the media's job is to "inform, arouse and to encourage. To inform us of our mistakes and of our opportunities. To encourage dissent and public debate."
What is wrong with today's media however, is it has been corporatized. CNN, MSNBC, FOX are either "left" or "right" leaning stations and therefore have absolutely no interest in informing the American People.
If we want a favorable outlook from the media, both nationally and abroad both in peace and in wartime, then as a government we must conduct ourselves in an honest fashion. That way the only thing that can be promoted is the truth.







Not exactly, your comments here made me think: How would a Fascist-Nationalist react, how would I react having taken this political philosophy to heart? The answer I came to, is that the Fascist State would have no such unproductive jobs.

Doing away with the min.wage and all low class jobs, these jobs aren't productive to either the economy or to the people instead we might as well call them "Living dead jobs", where you get paycheck to paycheck but you couldn't help yourself, much less others.

Fascism is not Lairezz-Faire and a true Fascist makes no such delusional claims. Instead, his political appeal would be for the people to seek out their strengths and to ignore the temptation of calling the ability to choose their weaknesses as "freedom".

Seriously, you may have the freedom to take that living dead job but does that make you happy? Wouldn't it be ideal if our entire society from top to bottom was prosperous and fulfilled? If our jobs, our homes, if everything in our homeland were elegant and redefined? I want to recreate this country into the glorious empires of old, with our citizens feeling as regal and as elegant as they ever had.





I, specifically don't have all the answers.(Though in my own self best interest I'll be looking for as many of them as I can find.) But what I do know, is that the answers that I don't have, somebody else has them and it will be up to them, to take this task as seriously as their own lives, believing and loving themselves and their people.

I don't have the answers, but I have a strong political conviction, belief and vision and I have the present to back up the reasons against both Lairezz-Faire and Corporate Structural Failure to the extent that trying either again is like hitting one's head on a brick wall.





All things in life are evolutionary and are progressive. Our Nation-States are our homes, are we crucifying the stockholder, who sold his highly profitable stock for value? As we lived in the heart of the North American Continent, were we just going to sit back and watch this continent be devoured by several minor forces? Or were we going to take the opportunity as it presented itself? And in the end, those we "conquered" maintained their habitats and even yes their own lands. Indian-Americans are sacredly protected by law, as is their culture.

Rebellions too, are progressive and evolutionary. They're also often mistaken. Ask Italian historians if in the modern day, they would reject Napoleon Bontaparte or Italian Nationalism? As they've been sucked into the borg hive of the European Union.






How would it tear each other apart? God forbid, our political interest is but to the meek extent as it's reported on the media outlet. Rather, the engaging of the discussion of how the new flag were to be, and how the new anthem would sound would revive the country.

And whether one likes the flag or the anthem is insignificant as compared to the Symbolic Message: We're back, we're taking a National Interest on the World Stage and we're united as one.

It's your opinion and belief that we may, in the end utterly despise our choice but if we maintain a universal belief and a universal statement in our messages, the symbol of the state will stay strong in the court of public opinion and it will stay strong as a symbol.

The flag and the statue of liberty are no longer strong as symbols because of the long standing history and because of the long standing political ignorance to the point of disinterest.

Completely missed the words "At least the ones I associate with"



Depends, are we talking about another American citizen whose rights are being violated or are we talking about a foreign nation? If it's an American citizen who is being oppressed then I say yes because the attention of their oppressors can eventually fall on you. This stems from my belief that every American man and woman has the same rights. If a group is violating the rights of another American, then by extension my rights are threatened.

If it's a foreign nation like Lybia, then I say no. I oppose all foreign entanglements without a constitutional declaration of war. The Libyan conflict was started by CIA operatives in order for western companies to gain access to Libyan oil reserves. The so called "leader" of the opposition was a CIA operative. These kinds of false flag operations are why I am a non-interventionist.



Here is where it gets delicate and I ask you to read the whole paragraph rather then succumbing to a knee-jerk reaction. I believe a property owner is allowed to discriminate, such as hiring practices, customer policy, etc. Otherwise we violate the rights of the property owner.

You're probably pretty appalled, angry with me or whatever. Look at it this way, you have the right to throw me out of your house and off your property at any time you desire right? So what if you owned a building and did not want me in it anymore? Let's say you opened a business and I applied for a job. Should you be obligated to give me a job based on the color of my skin (Note: I'm native American, not white)?


However, institutionalized segregation is something that I find abhorrent and a personal shame on this country's reputation. There should be no law in this country that treats one American citizen any differently than any other citizen regardless of criteria.



I wasn't trying to justify an entire philosophy by a simplified example. Instead I was explaining as simply as I could HOW the shift in mentality could come about. Any political ideology can work if the people involved are in agreement. It's why Anarcho-communes are able to work despite the diversity of people involved. They all understand the limitations of the system and have agreed to work within it's confines.



They are provided because someone thought it was the responsibility of government to provide these services.



If we're such horrible people that we would simply step over the old, the decrepit, the helpless, etc then why did we create these programs to help these people? To simplify, it all boils down to someone thought that it was the responsibility of government to provide these services.

It seems contradictory for us to be such selfish, greedy people yet, when polled the American people generally agree that such programs are necessary. So which is it, are we callus people who would let people die in the streets or are we benevolent people who care?

Edit:

When we say "laws against X" we're not talking about throwing everything out the window, which would be a severe case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In a Libertarian society, you can still sue somebody for damages. If a doctor kills you by screwing up your medication, your family can sue him for malpractice, wrongful death, etc. Legal action will still be possible in a Libertarian society.

Useful Link.

We care, we want to help, we want to do things! But I think that the Self-Determinist understands that the best way to help the old, the elderly, the unemployed(etc) is to tell them to rise once again! If we establish our society from the beginning of it's blueprint, then a future will be guaranteed to that generation's elders. And then on and so forth, unless you deviate from it.

We deviated over the past half a century from the Constitutional Republic and hence, we're in this mess today. That's the overlying flaw with returning to the Constitutional Republic, we apathetically deviated away from it once before. Our conscious awareness of the Constitutional Republic is moot amongst even our elders today.

There is not a standing for the new Republic to last any further than Paul's Administration, that is if the Administration is any successful. The new American Government must have this standing, and it must through it's nationalistic valor, call the people to their eternal duty.

That, and the Corporate Element is also a secondary factor which plays into the weakness of a Constitutional Republic restoration. As long as Corporations can partake in any fashion within our political system, we citizens have no political voice.

Freedom, in it's universal sense is a double-edged sword. Freedom, guided by principles and reasons and sound restrictions is long lasting.