The first element of good goverment being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community,the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themseives.
who writes the laws in a republic? the few? corporations? the majority? a unanimous vote? it is obvious to me there is no safe form of government, it will always become an oligarchy, just as dangerous as anarchy.
Does anybody have an idea exactly what's going on about building and cement paving? Cars, guns and factories are spread worldwide. Seems like every country has some form of cement and building influence. There are flags on record without countries. Who controlled America? How many corporate employees know their CEO?
@blondbeard10 Most republics have democratic elections what do you think it is when you go to vote for someone? In a Republic normally people are democratically elected to make policy decisions for everyone else.
If They are Republics, then they can be Democratic elections. I told you their is no real government anymore. And no our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a Republic
@blondbeard10 our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a Republic? just how many history courses have you failed anyway? Not only that, but it wouldn't hurt to actually take a few minutes to watch the video above bro.
@blondbeard10 I am stating the facts as he inserts his own, abstract observations and opinions which are less than unfounded assertions. They are purely fictitious.
@JonDeth SHE Ownz ur ass. I was talking about a republic and out of nowhere you started spouting stupid shit about America that don't even matter. The whole world laughs at America you know?
You are both right, in that our founding fathers did not want a democracy at all. They wanted a Republic, which is what America is supposed to be today. But it is not. It's not even a Democracy! It is not a form of government at all> The closest thing it comes to is an Alogarchy. But in acctuallity it is just that people want to make as much money as possible no matter who they stomp on. JonDeth does not understand really how to communicate.
@blondbeard10 Naw brah they wanted democratic elections at the local level, democracy isn't opposed to a republic it's part of most republics, what they didn't want was absolute democracy where everything was decided by popular vote.
:P And ur nation is a Republic, and an Oligarchy, with Democratic elections to decide which treasonous prostitute will grant special favors to corporations in exchange for campaign contributions, oh and something about family values and being patriotic. Luv u sheep
If you know what I know, you can force public servants to obey and function as the design obligates them. You are merely another troll trying to pick a fight that ignores the existence of the most powerful documents that exist in my Republic.
So feel free, I'm done dealing with ignorant, name calling, rock throwing children that do not have a fraction of my intelligence or knowledge.
@JonDeth Bro a plastic company gave an entire town cancer, killed over a hundred people, it was even on the news in a Toxic America special, no one did a thing.
The issue with Republic is... WHO creates the law? An elite group, or citizens voting for the law? And what is the law? "Law" is so vague. Also, I think it's more likely in terms of psychology that the majority would support laws and ethics that would be good for the majority. So why not let the majority vote for these "laws."
If you let a majority vote for a law then thats called 'mob rule' - 51% control 49%. Our country was set up as a republic so all citizens have a representative in the government. That is what democracy is. Mob rule. Especially if hthe mob is brainwashed with the lack of critical thinking you display. We had checks and balances through 3 government branches, all overseeing each other, judicial, legislative and executive.
Oligarchy vs Republic is a false dichotomy, in reality there is no contradiction between the two, in fact the most common form of republic throughout history has been oligarchical republic, perhaps representative to the people in theory, but completely beholden to the private elites in practice.
@Laughingblades you need to read the declaration of independence. It solidifies us as a Republic. For those who consent to be governed, a Constitutional Republic. That is still irrelevant because the nation's charter does not vest government with the authority to make laws over the people.
Regardless, it is run as a Constitutional Dictatorship.
Law agents are taught that statutes are law so they presume it's law over the people when it's only law over government and corporations.
@JonDeth The Declaration of Independence isn't the constitution though. And a Constitutional Republic does not require the consent of the governed, the dictatorship of a bureaucracy of theocrats oligarchs and tyrants is perfectly compatible with a republic.
Iran is a constitutional theocratic oligarchical republic with a dictator.
@Laughingblades it does require the consent of the people, otherwise it is not a Republic. In a Republic the power lies in the body of the people who can, but are not obligated or required, to elect representation. In a Republic, the rights of the individual can not be controlled by mob rule without their consent so. 51% can not vote for something an obligate the other 49% to obey it. It only effects those who consent.
You have absolutely no understanding of these documents and their words.
@JonDeth Wrong bro, a republic doesn't require consent. Republics do not necessarily require elections either, you seem to be confused by what America was supposed to be, America was supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic with a division of powers to keep it that way, but in practice it's become an oligarchy.
Also democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, a constitutional democracy has rule of law built into it, IE I couldn't just vote to have you killed.
@Laughingblades I'm not your bro and you are patently wrong. America is explicitly a Constitutional Republic. Representation in this form of government is based on consent. Your understanding is again, of a Constitutional Dictatorship where the people have no rights other than what is permitted and must be represented. That is not a Republic of any form.
I'm not your bro and you are incredibly ignorant.
What you call law is statutory meaning it's only law over the government, not the people.
@JonDeth Sorry bro but you're only half right. America is a Constitutional Republic, it's also supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic, sorry I left the word constitutional out, but it's supposed to be all of those things.
A republic is not required to be representative, and actually representative doesn't require consent it only requires representation, I could represent you without your consent in a way you find displeasing.
@Laughingblades no what you are understanding is based solely on the social security system. Once you enroll into it, you are now obliged to the democracy which is purely voluntary but nobody bothers to read the acts of congress. I do.
You clearly do not understand the language being used and are relying on interpretations posted online. Reading the bill itself is entirely different. It is literally a bill for services they will be rendering which are paid by tax dollars.
@JonDeth Ummm bro social security has nothing to do with anything I've been saying, and in fact you could have a completely voluntary SSI system, and democracy isn't even required to get Social Security in place. And bro, your constitution says you have to pay taxes, sorry bro go read it.
Social security registers you in a society created by the government. A society that ensures what? Social Security.
I have read the social security act, clearly you have not. Everything you believe has been told to you by someone else in the format of their interpretative opinion.
So I will not argue with you because I have seen for myself that you are wrong. I wager you do not even know that your state, county and city courts are non judicial.
@Laughingblades no the constitution merely states taxes as a power of congress. Our government only has authority over taxes, government itself, military, corporations and international affairs. What is law for them, is not law for us. it's a statute acting as a law and to obligate us, they must insert us into the system as one of them. Hence Social Security, a licensing of some kind etc.
@Laughingblades I am aware of what social security is as I said however, it obligates you to acts of legislation because you have now registered your person with a society. In law, America is not a society. We just use this word in general conversation. It is a Republic and your birth certificate validates you as a member. Republic and Society are not synonyms.
We use a democratic process. We are not a democracy. Try reading rather than repeating and assuming. Read a Bill top to bottom, I have
@Laughingblades in fact as you understand everything, I am obligated to vote because I am obligated to be represented. Wrong. In a Republic, specifically ours, the rights of an individual are not subject to the demands of a group. 51% can not vote yes on something then obligate the other 49% to obey.
However, by becoming a member of a government sponsored and SANCTIONED society, such as SOCIAL SECURITY, you have now consented tacitly.
@JonDeth Bro you can vote on whatever you like you have no guarantee of representation once you do. The person you elect is free to represent whoever he or she pleases, I mean you'd have to be a naive dumbass and not just a troll pretending to be a naive dumbass to actually believe that simply voting means you'll get representation.
Also you'd have to be pretty stupid, and not just a troll pretending to be stupid, to not realize that constitutional democracies can guarantee rights.
@Laughingblades wrong. Under the societal system we are registered into, SOCIAL SECURITY, I am now obligated to be represented by who was elected into office. If I retain my sovereignty as a member of the Republic, I can go to congress and represent myself.
Is it easy and will I be received warmly.
No but I see it happen all the time.
Your understanding is based on how someone explained it all to you, not as it is written.
We are a Constitutional Republic. Both declared and documented.
As a member of the Republic, I hold constitutional jurisdiction over all levels of government and public servants or employees there in. What that means is, the constitution is my law and authority I have retained over them. This is why they can not make laws over me and I must be tricked into it. Hence, social security and the licensing of otherwise lawful activities.
Once in their registered society, they may now presume what is law for them, is law for me.
@JonDeth Theory is fun and all but in reality no you don't, actually in theory you don't. You have the right to vote for someone to represent you, or run for office yourself. Aside from that and what the constitution or common law prescribes, that's it, and in practice the constitution and common law can't even protect your ass from the oligarchical rape of our private tyrannies.
@Laughingblades All nonsense. You are preaching to me from the perspective of someone who has consented to be governed. As stated, I can indeed go to Washington and represent myself. Can I take part in congressional meetings? Depends on the a nature but generally, no.
My only obligation in a Republic is generating a personal identity document upon my birth. Nothing else.
Beyond that it is all consent based. You may know your country but you do not know mine. Someone is feeding you propaganda.
@Laughingblades you are defining and explaining everything from the observation of a member of a society. You are patently wrong. The only thing in common with the two is they have members. What the PUBLIC SERVANTS have done is created a society that stands under the jurisdiction of a constitutional office ordained by congress. You then register with that society for benefits such as a tax brake but are actually saying, I am not socially secure. I need governance and aid.
@Laughingblades you stopped reading because I am destroying you.
I speak the language of law, you clearly do not. Everything you are referencing, stands under my constitution. A constitution is merely a charter that constitutes a limited portion of my authority into the constitutional government.
They then use a language schools do not teach into tricking me into standing under their vested authority so I then vest them with even greater amounts of my authority.
@JonDeth Naw (just saw top part) You're pretending to be completely ignorant I've already destroyed your arguments so there's no need to continue. You spam too much at once to be even worth the bother of reading, but I'll troll you, cuz that's fun.
The Declaration of Independence established us a Republic who's members must consent to be both governed and represented.
Our constitution established us as a constitutional republic who's members CAN choose to vest those elected into the positions created by that constitution, with a vesting of limited authority.
That constitution limits that authority to STANDING OVER only government, taxes, military, corporations and international affairs.
@JonDeth The design of your republic is not the model by which all republics are based. Iran is a Republic. What you think should and should not be about your failed state is irrelevant :3 Umad?
@Laughingblades the design you explained is not the one I live in and I will always be able to disprove such inflammatory claims. The first Republic dates back to 506 B.C., the Roman Republic. I forget the name of the ruler that conceived it a the time but I'm clearly more well read than you are based on so many of your fraudulent professions.
@JonDeth Naw brah you live in a state oligarchy I don't know why u mad, bro I just explained what a Republic wuz America don't own the word Republic America didn't invent the form of government, so you wuz confused, cuz I wuz talking about a republic, and u was being all stooped and talking about America like ur failed state matters, the whole world is laughing at America u no? Hell when BP took your taxes to take oil out of your gulf and sell it back 2 u at the pump, we wuz like, Bitz own u
@Laughingblades I am not mad in any sense. Why are you trying to function in an adult world with the mind and dialect of an 8th grader who wants to prove he's so gangsta?
@Laughingblades a license is doing the same thing. You are placing your god given right into a legal trust with the state. Now the contract must offer consideration for you. That consideration is say investigating a traffic accident or controlling the speed of other drivers to protect you. With that however comes obligations and liabilities.
Cops, deputies and patrolmen are told NONE of this.
They are told it's law, because over them it is law so they go out believing it's law for me as well.
@JonDeth Brah America didn't invent the first republic and is now an oligarchy ruled by rich people who only truly represent wall street millionaires u mad?
@Laughingblades I agree with you 100% on the way things are run.
I just know the actual design is not such, was never intended to be and contrary to your belief, some of the people here are not part of or controlled by that system what so ever.,,,about 1% of the population.
If you can insert the proper documents in the proper language however, public servants generally obey you and why not?
It happens maybe a few times a year out of tens of thousands of interactions.
@Laughingblades A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them is the legal definition of a Republic. Our declaration of Independence also states that the members of this Republic must consent to be governed.
In both regards, you must consent to be both represented and governed. It is not obligatory. I also know people who have removed themselves from both. You do not know what you believe you know. The language is deceptive.
@JonDeth Who elects is the question. A republic may only allow non democratically elected officials to elect it's members for instance, or it may allow popular vote among only a certain class of citizen, take the ancient Roman Republic for example. A republic does not require the consent of the governed nor does it require that the governed be represented.
Your constitution is irrelevant, republics have existed for over two thousand years, your oligarchical republic isn't even the only one.
You are patently wrong in every sense. You are using a rather thing, theoretical observation rather than reading the actual documents. I actually look at them and compare your claims TO THOSE DOCUMENTS I then reference in my replies. Much of which is from memory I have reviewed them so many times.
What you are defining MY Republic as, is the definition of a SOCIETY.
@JonDeth It's cute that you don't know anything about government but see fit to prescribe your particular notion of what a republic should be on the world. Go read past the first line on wikipedia kid you might learn something.
@Laughingblades you are 100 % "in the know" side. The meaning of the words has changed with the years. We live in an oligarchy, ruled by google,microsoft, etc, etc, the front runner is just .... a doll, a toy of a few and the pain of many. People think they are free but, Really? Look SOPA (WHO SAYS THAT THIS LAW IS NOT ILLEGALLY IMPLEMENTED?), or the new law that gives gov. the power to detain U.S Citizens. I am very concerned about my son's future.
No matter how much you limit state government if the business elites are allowed to gain unchecked wealth and power while never raising the wages of the working class to a Representative share of the wealth they produce, then the business elites will become government tyrannies unto themselves.
Until the workers own the work place and the people own the state there can never be freedom, but that would be socialism, that would be democracy, and you are trained to associate evil with that term.
The Roman Republic put easily corruptible politicians in power who created an oligarchy that in turn gave rise to an imperial despotism. The last person to ever fight for the people was murdered and his mother drowned.
A constitutional democracy enjoys the same rule of law as a republic, but a Republic takes the power away from the people and puts it in the hands of politicians who's only duty is to get elected, who can promise anything they want and represent whomever they want once in power.
The founders realized that in a time when it took months to get a message from Florida to Georgia, a Democracy could not work, because there was no way to find out what the people wanted and convey that information in a timely fashion. All your irrational fear mongering about lawless democracies doesn't apply to constitutional democracies that have a rule of law, so all you're left with is a matter of logistics.
The Lynch Mob Scenario has nothing to do with a republic OMG you've been brainwashed hard.
Here this little scenario would be more representative of a republic than what you represent, the Lynch mob catches them and wants to hang him, then some sleeze bag politician says "Vote for me and I'll hang him" then they elect the sleeze bag politician and instead of hanging him he takes a bribe gives him a pardon then sends a man who might be innocent to the electric chair.
Consider a Lynch Mob in a constitutional democracy. They chase down an outlaw and catch him, then they all want to hang him, but he has civil rights enshrined in the constitution and if they do they'll all be arrested and tried in a court of law as murderers.
Unlike the scenario you present, which is just propaganda you yourself have been fed to convince you that you shouldn't have a voice in Washington, a constitutional democracy isn't anarchy
"Republic Ruled by Law" Seriously? Seriously? You're shitting me. And how is a constitutional democracy not also ruled by law? And how is a republic, where a cabal of politicians claim to speak for you rather than allowing you to speak for yourself, any more rule of law than a constitutional democracy?
There is nothing about a republic that promises you a true rule of law, you could end up with a crime syndicate running your country like you have now.
Communism is also anarchistic by it's very nature, neither socialism nor communism allow for despots to rule over them, the only role of any despot or monarch in either system is to bring it about then step down, and communism differs in a great many respects from socialism. You know what just look this stuff up yourself this video is factually inaccurate on these systems, it's the same bullshit propaganda you've been fed in high school without having the terms ever clearly defined to you.
Socialism is when the workers own the work place and the people own the government.
When applied to Business socialism is worker's cooperatives, when the workers own a representative share of the company they work for and take home wages representative of the prosperity of their company, so that labor controls the means of production and democratically governs the work place.
When applied to politics socialism is when the people are the state and democratically decide it's functions.
Also the far right has no provisions against government. Left to right is a scale of economic and political ideologies that range from Anarcho Capitalism to Corporate Despotism on the Right, and Anarcho Communism (a naive unobtainable utopia) to compulsory collectivism on the far left.
On both the left and right there are ideas and ideologies that can be found anywhere on a spectrum of equity and liberty. And sadly, the American People have no clue what socialism or socialization even are.
The reason America was founded as a Republic was because under the limitations of communication and transit at the time a Democracy was not possible for any nation larger than a city state. A Constitutional Republic has all of the same problems and all of the same protections that a Constitutional Democracy has, except that a Republic is made up of easily corruptible men who claim to speak for you rather than allowing you to have a voice.
America's true form of government is an Oligarchical Republic, just like the many that existed before America, where the working class has no representation and the demagogues elected to represent the people instead take their voice away and act as tyrants who represent only the business elite.
All young people like them Need to KNOW that Soros and Piven and other Elitists are On Record saying they Want to Destroy the USA and Make a One World Government, where EVERYBODY (except them of course) will have EQUAL INCOME.
That would mean Every American would get about 1 or 2 Thousand $ per year for All their Needs - Housing, Clothes, Food, Everything!
So they are Doing the Class Warfare 'stuff' in order to Make themselves Very Dirt Groveling Poor!
@3martijns The funny thing about mobs is that they are all followers of an idea. And of course the idea and reasoning behind it are someone else s certainly not the mobs.
What these elites are saying is that we all are equally responsible for evolution of society and the betterment of man. That there are no special individuals who create or are more more productive than anyone else thus not requiring incentive.
MsSexySocialist ... Please do not write. I gave up on you long ago as a hopeless, genetic democrat/socialist.. You have no credibility when it comes to examination of facts. You choose to spout off from your talking points. Kool-Aid and whatever you smoke has overcome any sense of reason on your part. So bug off and join up with the Muslims ... you have no place in the America I served as a Marine.
It can be hard to get the point when you can't seem to figure out something as basic as how to link youtube comments properly. ^^
I'd wouldn't be surprised if when you served as a marine you shot more of your own squad than the Muslims you hate so much. Guess you probably hated the gays in the army more huh?
You can reiterate the same meaningless comment all you like - it only makes you look like even more of a failure ^_^
MsSexySocialist ... Please do not write. I gave up on you long ago as a hopeless, genetic democrat/socialist.. You have no credibility when it comes to examination of facts. You choose to spout off from your talking points. Kool-Aid and whatever you smoke has overcome any sense of reason on your part. So bug off!
@AmishRAdio These kids and the modern education system. College is no longer an institution of higher learning it is an indoctrination of some professors personal beliefs. If she wants to learn she will seek out an informed group of well read/learned individuals and discuss a topic and allow reason to prevail.
The 'test' is loaded. How does one answer a question similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your handle, MsSexySocialist suggests your bias and the compass charts, though cute, don't even use the word conservative. From what I could see it seems what I think of as conservative, they call liberal which fits what I would expect is a desire to confuse which is part and parcel of the socialist bag of dirty tricks.
wars, atomic bomb,collapse of the world wide economic system, uncontrollabe riots (london), revolutions (the arab revolutions of 2011) terrorist attacks(oslo/wtc), government who "controls" human mind and everything around, chernobyl, fukushima, katrina, ike ,sri lanka (2006), eathquakes, floods, drought, deaths of sadam/bin laden, ufo's, inflation, opening universal consciousness, depletion of earth, AND SO ON!
What is America's True Form of Government? July-31-2011--The true American form of government was meant to be a constitutional republic not a democracy, or anything else. Democracy means mob rule. 51% of the people rule the other 49%.
Education ,constitution ,republic ,democracy ,monarchy ,ben franklin ,
thomas jefferson ,revolution ,independence ,irs , fbi ,american sovereignty ,
britain founding fathers, VIKEN Z KOKOZIAN ,INFO-AWARENESS,
Anarchy done right isn't that bad, just because there is an Anarchy doesn't mean there is no law, or police of some sort, it just means no one has to much power.
@ubertubered your describing a republic, in anarchy nobody has any power everyone is free to do watever, but in a republic power is spread out so everyone has power. basically anarchy means everyone is equal beacuse everyone has no power, in a republic everyone is equal because everyone, has the same power
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
Washington didn't become president until 1789, following the terms of Presidents Hanson, Boudinot, Mifflin, Lee, Gorham, St. Clair and Griffin. But Hanson and the others got a bad press, according to a story in The Star, December 2, 1975, and Washington, Franklin and others soon stole the spotlight. .
@frombaerum c.1600, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public"
So let me get this straight; Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Marxism...oh hell, you said etc, so everything is Left wing, and on the Right wing there is nothing, not even Anarchy (which doesn't exist anyway) even though it's on the other end? Just want to get it straight.
@Xelanderthomas The left/right paradigm is a fallacy in its entirety. Quit thinking left or right. It's a flawed paradigm espoused by liberals/progressives to throw people off track of the actual situation, which is as this video describes accurately.
@aivilik Okay, but you have to admit there is a difference between more freedom and less freedom. Either you are free to live your life the way you want or there are some restrictions. You are correct the paradigm of left/right is a construct to actually obfuscate the desire shared by many to control the masses. If we can redirect the "right" to support more freedom the left/right paradigm will be useful to some degree. Watching the actions of individuals is the bottom line.
@swismister There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Marriage is a Christian institution. Christianitycondems homosexuality, so there is no 'gay marriage'. Homosexuals may only have a 'civil union'.
The true evil doers of humanity are the private central bankers, the money lenders, they are the masters of deception, they cause wars thru deception and propaganda and divide humanity=divide and conquer. Private central banks thru out the world are the true evil doers of the planet.
We fit the video's definition of a republic more today, where the rule of law has established civil rights legislation to protect the interests and rights of minorities. Of course we are on the right track now, our government, defined more precisely as a representative democratic republic has improved.
One thing I find funny about this videos misleading definitions of government is how our government is defined by a republic under rule of law which avoids the majority rule which this video defines as democracy, and which this video implies the US is moving towards. If one thinks about it, according to this video's definitions the founding fathers set the US up as a democracy with a majority rule, minorities such as blacks had their rights trodden upon by the majority.
Some of the things the constitution of the US (and any constitution for that matter) do are oppressive. The men who draft effectively give themselves power and the power to do things that are against freedom. I think government and constitutions are better if as many people as possible have a say in them.
The US constitution is an amazing document and guarantees real freedoms that at the time of its drafting were not experienced by much of the world.
First of the all the writers of the constitution gave themselves powers that no one bestowed upon them.
The constitution also gives the power of the government to tax the public. This effectively gives the government the ability to take property away from its citizens without consent. The constitution says it will establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. This is all so vague it can be used to justify many acts which could harm the people.
which is the reason we are a democratic republic. Our government cannot raise taxes because there are laws in place that state it must be agreed upon by the other branches of government. No individual can raise taxes, and any group that would strive to do so would find themselves out of their seats come the next election.
Representatives approved the document. A document which starts 'We the people' should have been approved by the people otherwise it should have read 'We the states'. The common people of the 13 colonies were never given the opportunity to view of draft the constitution.
Every 'farm poke' should have been able to vote on it because they would be under its rule. Why on earth should people consent to be ruled under anything without consent?
representatives are used so things can be done efficiently. If every person was to vote on the matter especially back then the constitution would never have been made. It took weeks for mail to get anywhere, in that time there would have been no way to calculate how many voted for or against. votes would have been lost along mail routes and it would eventually divulge into a mess.
@King100Joe "and this is actally my power. Here we will kill you by armed force of human beings. but i will kill the rest of the people with the plagues of famine and death."
Evidently you've been listening to Charlie Sheen too much lately.
@King100Joe Can you please stop writing nonsensical comments on Youtube. If you are going to comment at least try to make sense so people can understand what your argument is, otherwise go to university and learn something about the world and try to be constructive and intelligent in your comments so we can at least try to take you seriously. I'm a teacher for your information, and i feel sorry for your lack of education and astonishing stupidity.
@King100Joe, I could resort to calling you many words, but instead i will be an adult and use reasoned argument. What does an engine have to do with freedom, last time i check we were evolved living organisms not machines. Are you trying to say that in order to be free we have to be turned into cogs in the capitalist machine? When did i blame reason? And threatening to kill somebody because you don't agree with them doesn't do you any favors.
The founding fathers never put the constitution up to vote among the general people of the 13 colonies when it should have. The constitution was only passed narrowly and only who votes would have been needed to defeat it when it was originally voted in.
I am not a left wing idiot. I am just fed up of people holding up the American constitution up on a pedestal where it cannot be criticized or talked about.
Most leftists do want to limit government actually - myself especially.
In fact, it was the aspiration of almost all classical socialists to eventually dissolve the state and centralized government entirely in favor of a system of decentralized participatory democracy.
In the modern day however -where big business is as powerful as the state itself- we see government as perhaps the lesser of two evils in the short term. As at least the state has some accountibility to the public.
Yes - that's why it's nonsensical. It's an attempt to try to associate all forms of political science traditionaly held to be "left-wing" with statism and totalitarianism.
Also, don't capitalize entire sentenses for emphasis. It makes you look like an angry lunatic.
A problem with a constitution is that people are left to interpret it. The US constitution was never approved by the people of the 13 colonies and contains phrases that should make any American uneasy.
@MsSexySocialist Left-right. It doesn't matter. They could have used either side. The point is to protect the rights of the people which falls in the middle. They could have said anarchy was on the far left, and all the others were on the far right. It really doesn't matter. It works both ways, they were just using that to prove their point. The point is to have limited government. I don't believe in the false left-right paradigm anyway.
@Kennedy1op The left/right paradigm is a logical fallacy. The reality is that the difference between the two main political (policy) philosophies is 'personal responsibility' vs. 'lack of personal responsibility' in the context of what belongs to others; i.e. wealth, resources, freedom, etc. Conservatism promotes the conservation of the property and rights of others, whereas liberalism promotes the expense (waste) of the property and rights of others.
All i see with capitalists is how the exploit others and dump and pollute without giving a single thought to how their actions affect others. Where was the personal responsibility when they sent soldiers to die for them? Where was the personal responsibility when they stole trillions from the public? Freedom? don't make me laugh you dont even know what real freedom is.
Furthermore we don't have private property, Only the top 3% have this privilege.
@kingmafi6699 First off, I never mentioned 'capitalists'. I mentioned liberals and conservatives. I have never advocated pollution dumping, and a conservative wouldn't either. Now let's not confuse RINOs with conservatives. Of course there are members of the republican party who would do any or all of the things that you eluded to, but a party is just that: a political party in a two-party system. You could just as easily call them party A and party B. What you call them doesn't matter. (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 It is possible to have conservative democrats (though not likely), and 'liberal' or 'progressive' republicans (this is more likely). Party affiliation doesn't matter. The value system that one subscribes to matters. The two opposing value systems at odds are conservatism and liberalism (not to be confused with classic liberalism, the meaning of which has been bastardized by 'progressives', who are in fact, REgressive in their values and policies). (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 Conservatism is a 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' value system. There is no hypocrisy; there is no hidden agenda, there are no lies. RINOs are 'Republicans In Name Only', meaning that they are actually liberals, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. Liberals are just liars, plain and simple. many of their lies contain a grains of truth, as the most effective lies always do, but they are lies, nonetheless. When you know history, you'll know that what I say is true. As far as the (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 so-called 'exploitation' of people by 'capitalists', people cannot be exploited unless they allow themselves to be exploited, at which point, is becomes consent. People consent to their own exploitation all the time: it's called having a job working for someone else. The #1 rule of working for someone else is you do what you're told, period. If you don't like it, you find another job. It's a dictatorship; always has been; always will be, out of necessity. A successful (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 can't be run by consensus. All successful businesses are dictatorships. The most successful businesses are 'benevolent' dictatorships, but they are dictatorships all the same. No one is being 'exploited'. That's playing the 'victim' card. "Oh, boo-hoo! I'm being 'exploited'!" Go find another job if you don't like it & see how much better that works out for you. Working for others is not one's only option in America. That's why so many people come here from other countries. (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 to do with starting wars than our own politicians do, though. Our government has been corrupted by the Banksters/NWO for a long time and it's coming to a head now. People are beginning to wake up; I just hope it's not too late. Stealing trillions from the public is not a conservative action; it's a liberal one. I know what freedom is. It's what our men and women in the armed forces and in the earlier days, the militia died for. Freedom is what the NWO is trying to take from us now.
@kingmafi6699 I know our property isn't entirely private, and that's one of the very wrong things about the direction the United States has been going for a long time now. You still have to pay property taxes, and if you don't, the government will take your land. Then there is eminent domain 'law', which isn't even Constitutional. What top 3% have the privilege of owning private land? To whom are you referring?
@kingmafi6699 The ability to own your own property is not wrong. It is what makes we Americans 'citizens' rather than 'subjects' of a monarchy or oligarchy. The fact that we have to pay property taxes is wrong. There is plenty of property for everyone, the problem is liberals who would skim off the top of the profits of your productivity. THAT'S wrong. Others have no right to the fruits of your labor, in the same way that you don't have a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor. (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 Someone is going to own the land whether you like it, agree with it, or not. Your only option is to choose whether you want your own piece of land, on which to raise your family, or always be indebted to the property owner such as in the scenario that you have stated: public land only. So-called 'native ' cultures are not educated, or developed medically, technologically, industrially, militarily, or in many other ways. They are not advanced societies. (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 So-called 'social problems' are not the most important aspect of a quality life. The ability for people to own their own piece of property does not 'ignore' the interdependence between people and the land; in fact, it accentuates that interdependence. People want to take care of their little piece of land. No one buys land just to let it go to hell or to waste. They buy it for a reason, and that reason is typically to improve the quality of their lives in some way, even (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 if it is as an investment property. There you go with the 'exploitation' / victimization ideology again. The land is used more efficiently when privately owned than when publicly owned (how many farms do you see on public land?), but it is used to farm and ranch either way, it's just more efficient/less wasteful when privately owned and controlled, so your 'exploitation' argument is a fallacy. You sound like a socialist to me; bad logic; which means that you have a mental illness.
Efficiency by its definition is the abscence of waste. Capitalism is far more wasteful than every other economic system in history. It creates monopolies where capitalists accumulate more until they can determine the very laws that govern society. You can see examples of this with corporations like Monsanto who have virtually patented the pig and use whatever legal means to force farmers to accept GMO seeds. Therefore private farms do not exist for the majority of farmers.
@kingmafi6699 Farmers are not forced to accept GMO seeds. They DO have a choice. Life is about choosing; making decisions; no one ever said that making those decisions would be easy. What economic system do you think is more effective or efficient than capitalism? NAME one, if you can, which of course you can't, because there has never been one. What kind of economic system doesn't create monopolies? Legislation is what prevents monopolies, not economic systems. Economic systems only make money.
One which eliminates private property, free of market coercion, free of state control where technology and labor are used to maximize humanity rather than profit.
@kingmafi6699 So let me get this straight: property would not be privately owned, nor controlled by the government? That's certainly interesting, but there's no way. Either people are going to want their own property, or the government is going to at LEAST want to make money off of it somehow; property taxes, rent, etc). And I have a feeling that what you refer to as 'market coersion is actually competition, which will never go away. (cont'd)
@kingmafi6699 As long as there are 'haves' and 'have nots', the have nots will always try to get a slice of the pie, even if it's on the plate of someone else who 'has'. You can't stop envy or want. And just how do you think that technology and labor are going to be 'used' to 'maximize humanity' rather than profit? Are you willing to work for free? Because if you are, I have a job for you. One last thing: is there now, or has there ever been, an example of this utopia that you describe?
@MsSexySocialist I don't think you understood the use of the visual aid. How can anarchy be indentified as being ruled by any government, ?? Anarchy being identified as being part of OUR political left makes no sense, People on the political left/right would not be anarchist they would be activist UNLESS they no longer support any government and refuse to obey its laws then it becomes anarchy and then falls under the no government spectrum.
I said "Anarchism", not the situation of "Anarchy".
Anarchism as a political and personal philosophy has existed since the 1840s when the Left-Socialist writer Pierre Joseph-Proudon declared himself to be an Anarchist and advocated a society without centralized government and instead supported a decentralized confederation of free municipalities and democratic control of the means of production.
As an outgrowth of anti-state socialism, Anarchism has ALWAYS been Left-wing.
@MsSexySocialist What exactly do you think happens when there is no central government ?, Russia was a federation that centralized around an ideology. Several municipalities who may not agree is what has historically caused the centralized control to the point of absurdity. I understand what Anarchism is, someone who follows that philosophy would be an anarchist.
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations
@MsSexySocialist but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[4]
@MsSexySocialist There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[5] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications
@MsSexySocialist Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics.
@MsSexySocialist OK I think you misunderstood the verbage. Traditional use of the term anarchy is lawless society I have been in anarchy situations in fact that is how governments are traditionally overthrown during the traditional anarchy. life experience travelling the world and being involved with governments and being well read. The idea that there can be a leaderless government without becoming under authority of a power hungry individual is insane hence the USSR.
To reiterate YET AGAIN, I said Anarchism - not anarchy. You seem to think the word "anarchy itself is synonymous with "Chaos". A situation of anarchy without order can lead to chaos, but when coupled with organization can lead to a society far better structured and organized than any current one.
The word anarchy literally means "without rulers" the rule of the state, the rule of oligarchs, or the rule of the market.
@MsSexySocialist The word has a few meanings, in OUR vernacular it is often used in reference to lawlessness. I posted the wikipedia description for you. Again your description is socialism with a twist collectivism is collectivism is collectivism. Explain how you achieve order in a society full of individuals with individual goals and initiative?
@MsSexySocialist I have a degree in Poli sci I am well aware of what the theory is I am curious as to how you believe in the idea that you can have a culture with individualism will function without collectivism to some extent. ?? I appreciate the time you are taking I remember this same ideology was being advocated in academic circles when I was younger the longer I live in the real world and not acadamia I recognize it as unrealistic, Nirvana does not exist in this world.
The political tradition known as anarchism has nothing to do with "lawlessness" or a return to some kind of societal vacuum without any kind of organization or coordination.
It advocates replacing the centralized state with a decentralized system of confederation where decision making power flows from the bottom up instead of the top down and founded on principles of direct and participatory democracy - in the polity, workplace, and community.
@MsSexySocialist Also if you actually had the brain capacity to comprehend this video then you would have understood what is clearly explained to you that anarchism is not a real political movement at all, but a process perpetrated by groups with agendas for different form of government. Simpletons like you msSexySocialists make up 99% of the socialists in the world, you are what Lenin called "useful idiot" :D
@MsSexySocialist Alex Jones is not only a scaremonger, but he is also a moron and the "right wing" equivalent of leftist sensationalist media ludicrously. So no I dont listen to Alex Jones much ;)
The first element of good goverment being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing the community,the most important point of excellence which any form of government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themseives.
activebrains000 1 day ago
who writes the laws in a republic? the few? corporations? the majority? a unanimous vote? it is obvious to me there is no safe form of government, it will always become an oligarchy, just as dangerous as anarchy.
quicknuss 1 week ago
Democracy only works if you don't mind having tyranny. We are already in an Oligarchy, and most haven't the sense to recognize it.
MrNorman1956 2 weeks ago
We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
sritger 1 month ago
DEMOCRACY WORKS
daftronome 1 month ago
Amazing well directed video, one of the best portrayed short films of power of a society I have seen.
jasekable 1 month ago
pee wee for president from the kumbia kings
ztheking11 1 month ago
History ALWAYS repeats itself!
Ome99 1 month ago
Does anybody have an idea exactly what's going on about building and cement paving? Cars, guns and factories are spread worldwide. Seems like every country has some form of cement and building influence. There are flags on record without countries. Who controlled America? How many corporate employees know their CEO?
heartlessvietboy 2 months ago
Well said
soopinionthoughts300 2 months ago
who me?
blondbeard10 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 I think he things we're the same people because he's herpaderp retarded.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
they cant be democratic
blondbeard10 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 Most republics have democratic elections what do you think it is when you go to vote for someone? In a Republic normally people are democratically elected to make policy decisions for everyone else.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
If They are Republics, then they can be Democratic elections. I told you their is no real government anymore. And no our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a Republic
blondbeard10 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with a Republic? just how many history courses have you failed anyway? Not only that, but it wouldn't hurt to actually take a few minutes to watch the video above bro.
MrGmeades1 2 months ago
What Is Jon really arguing?
blondbeard10 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 I am stating the facts as he inserts his own, abstract observations and opinions which are less than unfounded assertions. They are purely fictitious.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth SHE Ownz ur ass. I was talking about a republic and out of nowhere you started spouting stupid shit about America that don't even matter. The whole world laughs at America you know?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades you just used the wrong account ya dumbass
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Wut? Hahaha you're a dumbass brah.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
You are both right, in that our founding fathers did not want a democracy at all. They wanted a Republic, which is what America is supposed to be today. But it is not. It's not even a Democracy! It is not a form of government at all> The closest thing it comes to is an Alogarchy. But in acctuallity it is just that people want to make as much money as possible no matter who they stomp on. JonDeth does not understand really how to communicate.
blondbeard10 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 Naw brah they wanted democratic elections at the local level, democracy isn't opposed to a republic it's part of most republics, what they didn't want was absolute democracy where everything was decided by popular vote.
:P And ur nation is a Republic, and an Oligarchy, with Democratic elections to decide which treasonous prostitute will grant special favors to corporations in exchange for campaign contributions, oh and something about family values and being patriotic. Luv u sheep
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@blondbeard10 you're patently wrong as well.
If you know what I know, you can force public servants to obey and function as the design obligates them. You are merely another troll trying to pick a fight that ignores the existence of the most powerful documents that exist in my Republic.
So feel free, I'm done dealing with ignorant, name calling, rock throwing children that do not have a fraction of my intelligence or knowledge.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Bro a plastic company gave an entire town cancer, killed over a hundred people, it was even on the news in a Toxic America special, no one did a thing.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
The issue with Republic is... WHO creates the law? An elite group, or citizens voting for the law? And what is the law? "Law" is so vague. Also, I think it's more likely in terms of psychology that the majority would support laws and ethics that would be good for the majority. So why not let the majority vote for these "laws."
arepasheat 3 months ago
@arepasheat
If you let a majority vote for a law then thats called 'mob rule' - 51% control 49%. Our country was set up as a republic so all citizens have a representative in the government. That is what democracy is. Mob rule. Especially if hthe mob is brainwashed with the lack of critical thinking you display. We had checks and balances through 3 government branches, all overseeing each other, judicial, legislative and executive.
LoveBringsTruth 3 months ago
Oligarchy vs Republic is a false dichotomy, in reality there is no contradiction between the two, in fact the most common form of republic throughout history has been oligarchical republic, perhaps representative to the people in theory, but completely beholden to the private elites in practice.
Laughingblades 3 months ago 6
@Laughingblades you need to read the declaration of independence. It solidifies us as a Republic. For those who consent to be governed, a Constitutional Republic. That is still irrelevant because the nation's charter does not vest government with the authority to make laws over the people.
Regardless, it is run as a Constitutional Dictatorship.
Law agents are taught that statutes are law so they presume it's law over the people when it's only law over government and corporations.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth The Declaration of Independence isn't the constitution though. And a Constitutional Republic does not require the consent of the governed, the dictatorship of a bureaucracy of theocrats oligarchs and tyrants is perfectly compatible with a republic.
Iran is a constitutional theocratic oligarchical republic with a dictator.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades it does require the consent of the people, otherwise it is not a Republic. In a Republic the power lies in the body of the people who can, but are not obligated or required, to elect representation. In a Republic, the rights of the individual can not be controlled by mob rule without their consent so. 51% can not vote for something an obligate the other 49% to obey it. It only effects those who consent.
You have absolutely no understanding of these documents and their words.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Wrong bro, a republic doesn't require consent. Republics do not necessarily require elections either, you seem to be confused by what America was supposed to be, America was supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic with a division of powers to keep it that way, but in practice it's become an oligarchy.
Also democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, a constitutional democracy has rule of law built into it, IE I couldn't just vote to have you killed.
You're a dumbass bro.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I'm not your bro and you are patently wrong. America is explicitly a Constitutional Republic. Representation in this form of government is based on consent. Your understanding is again, of a Constitutional Dictatorship where the people have no rights other than what is permitted and must be represented. That is not a Republic of any form.
I'm not your bro and you are incredibly ignorant.
What you call law is statutory meaning it's only law over the government, not the people.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Sorry bro but you're only half right. America is a Constitutional Republic, it's also supposed to be a Democratic Representative Republic, sorry I left the word constitutional out, but it's supposed to be all of those things.
A republic is not required to be representative, and actually representative doesn't require consent it only requires representation, I could represent you without your consent in a way you find displeasing.
Try looking this stuff up it's not hard k bro?
Laughingblades 2 months ago 3
@Laughingblades no what you are understanding is based solely on the social security system. Once you enroll into it, you are now obliged to the democracy which is purely voluntary but nobody bothers to read the acts of congress. I do.
You clearly do not understand the language being used and are relying on interpretations posted online. Reading the bill itself is entirely different. It is literally a bill for services they will be rendering which are paid by tax dollars.
You have much to learn
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Ummm bro social security has nothing to do with anything I've been saying, and in fact you could have a completely voluntary SSI system, and democracy isn't even required to get Social Security in place. And bro, your constitution says you have to pay taxes, sorry bro go read it.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades wrong
Social security registers you in a society created by the government. A society that ensures what? Social Security.
I have read the social security act, clearly you have not. Everything you believe has been told to you by someone else in the format of their interpretative opinion.
So I will not argue with you because I have seen for myself that you are wrong. I wager you do not even know that your state, county and city courts are non judicial.
Good luck!
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades no the constitution merely states taxes as a power of congress. Our government only has authority over taxes, government itself, military, corporations and international affairs. What is law for them, is not law for us. it's a statute acting as a law and to obligate us, they must insert us into the system as one of them. Hence Social Security, a licensing of some kind etc.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I am aware of what social security is as I said however, it obligates you to acts of legislation because you have now registered your person with a society. In law, America is not a society. We just use this word in general conversation. It is a Republic and your birth certificate validates you as a member. Republic and Society are not synonyms.
We use a democratic process. We are not a democracy. Try reading rather than repeating and assuming. Read a Bill top to bottom, I have
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades in fact as you understand everything, I am obligated to vote because I am obligated to be represented. Wrong. In a Republic, specifically ours, the rights of an individual are not subject to the demands of a group. 51% can not vote yes on something then obligate the other 49% to obey.
However, by becoming a member of a government sponsored and SANCTIONED society, such as SOCIAL SECURITY, you have now consented tacitly.
You obey to ensure this societies security.
It's a scam.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Bro you can vote on whatever you like you have no guarantee of representation once you do. The person you elect is free to represent whoever he or she pleases, I mean you'd have to be a naive dumbass and not just a troll pretending to be a naive dumbass to actually believe that simply voting means you'll get representation.
Also you'd have to be pretty stupid, and not just a troll pretending to be stupid, to not realize that constitutional democracies can guarantee rights.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades wrong. Under the societal system we are registered into, SOCIAL SECURITY, I am now obligated to be represented by who was elected into office. If I retain my sovereignty as a member of the Republic, I can go to congress and represent myself.
Is it easy and will I be received warmly.
No but I see it happen all the time.
Your understanding is based on how someone explained it all to you, not as it is written.
We are a Constitutional Republic. Both declared and documented.
JonDeth 2 months ago
As a member of the Republic, I hold constitutional jurisdiction over all levels of government and public servants or employees there in. What that means is, the constitution is my law and authority I have retained over them. This is why they can not make laws over me and I must be tricked into it. Hence, social security and the licensing of otherwise lawful activities.
Once in their registered society, they may now presume what is law for them, is law for me.
EVERYONE here is tricked into SSS
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Theory is fun and all but in reality no you don't, actually in theory you don't. You have the right to vote for someone to represent you, or run for office yourself. Aside from that and what the constitution or common law prescribes, that's it, and in practice the constitution and common law can't even protect your ass from the oligarchical rape of our private tyrannies.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades All nonsense. You are preaching to me from the perspective of someone who has consented to be governed. As stated, I can indeed go to Washington and represent myself. Can I take part in congressional meetings? Depends on the a nature but generally, no.
My only obligation in a Republic is generating a personal identity document upon my birth. Nothing else.
Beyond that it is all consent based. You may know your country but you do not know mine. Someone is feeding you propaganda.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades you are defining and explaining everything from the observation of a member of a society. You are patently wrong. The only thing in common with the two is they have members. What the PUBLIC SERVANTS have done is created a society that stands under the jurisdiction of a constitutional office ordained by congress. You then register with that society for benefits such as a tax brake but are actually saying, I am not socially secure. I need governance and aid.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Having fun bro? I've stopped reading these justsoyaknow so I hope you enjoy typing feverish ignorance at your keyboard.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades you stopped reading because I am destroying you.
I speak the language of law, you clearly do not. Everything you are referencing, stands under my constitution. A constitution is merely a charter that constitutes a limited portion of my authority into the constitutional government.
They then use a language schools do not teach into tricking me into standing under their vested authority so I then vest them with even greater amounts of my authority.
You are very mislead.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Naw (just saw top part) You're pretending to be completely ignorant I've already destroyed your arguments so there's no need to continue. You spam too much at once to be even worth the bother of reading, but I'll troll you, cuz that's fun.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I will break it down for you.
The Declaration of Independence established us a Republic who's members must consent to be both governed and represented.
Our constitution established us as a constitutional republic who's members CAN choose to vest those elected into the positions created by that constitution, with a vesting of limited authority.
That constitution limits that authority to STANDING OVER only government, taxes, military, corporations and international affairs.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth The design of your republic is not the model by which all republics are based. Iran is a Republic. What you think should and should not be about your failed state is irrelevant :3 Umad?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades the design you explained is not the one I live in and I will always be able to disprove such inflammatory claims. The first Republic dates back to 506 B.C., the Roman Republic. I forget the name of the ruler that conceived it a the time but I'm clearly more well read than you are based on so many of your fraudulent professions.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Naw brah you live in a state oligarchy I don't know why u mad, bro I just explained what a Republic wuz America don't own the word Republic America didn't invent the form of government, so you wuz confused, cuz I wuz talking about a republic, and u was being all stooped and talking about America like ur failed state matters, the whole world is laughing at America u no? Hell when BP took your taxes to take oil out of your gulf and sell it back 2 u at the pump, we wuz like, Bitz own u
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades you can not even speak a form of sensible, understandable English.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth u understand dis?
Most Republics involve Democratic elections.
Problem? Why u mad?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I am not mad in any sense. Why are you trying to function in an adult world with the mind and dialect of an 8th grader who wants to prove he's so gangsta?
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades a license is doing the same thing. You are placing your god given right into a legal trust with the state. Now the contract must offer consideration for you. That consideration is say investigating a traffic accident or controlling the speed of other drivers to protect you. With that however comes obligations and liabilities.
Cops, deputies and patrolmen are told NONE of this.
They are told it's law, because over them it is law so they go out believing it's law for me as well.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth wrong -didn't even read it just know you've probably said something stupid again-
Ohey are you copy and pasting this from somewhere?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I have simply stated the facts of the most simple, powerful documents that were used to create my country and maintain it's standing.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Read those while referencing a law dictionary and you might be able to say something not only intelligent but CORRECT.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Brah America didn't invent the first republic and is now an oligarchy ruled by rich people who only truly represent wall street millionaires u mad?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades I agree with you 100% on the way things are run.
I just know the actual design is not such, was never intended to be and contrary to your belief, some of the people here are not part of or controlled by that system what so ever.,,,about 1% of the population.
If you can insert the proper documents in the proper language however, public servants generally obey you and why not?
It happens maybe a few times a year out of tens of thousands of interactions.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@Laughingblades A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them is the legal definition of a Republic. Our declaration of Independence also states that the members of this Republic must consent to be governed.
In both regards, you must consent to be both represented and governed. It is not obligatory. I also know people who have removed themselves from both. You do not know what you believe you know. The language is deceptive.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth Who elects is the question. A republic may only allow non democratically elected officials to elect it's members for instance, or it may allow popular vote among only a certain class of citizen, take the ancient Roman Republic for example. A republic does not require the consent of the governed nor does it require that the governed be represented.
Your constitution is irrelevant, republics have existed for over two thousand years, your oligarchical republic isn't even the only one.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades No.
You are patently wrong in every sense. You are using a rather thing, theoretical observation rather than reading the actual documents. I actually look at them and compare your claims TO THOSE DOCUMENTS I then reference in my replies. Much of which is from memory I have reviewed them so many times.
What you are defining MY Republic as, is the definition of a SOCIETY.
Again, they are not synonyms.
You are completely wrong.
JonDeth 2 months ago
@JonDeth It's cute that you don't know anything about government but see fit to prescribe your particular notion of what a republic should be on the world. Go read past the first line on wikipedia kid you might learn something.
U mad?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades you are 100 % "in the know" side. The meaning of the words has changed with the years. We live in an oligarchy, ruled by google,microsoft, etc, etc, the front runner is just .... a doll, a toy of a few and the pain of many. People think they are free but, Really? Look SOPA (WHO SAYS THAT THIS LAW IS NOT ILLEGALLY IMPLEMENTED?), or the new law that gives gov. the power to detain U.S Citizens. I am very concerned about my son's future.
pereiraduque80 1 day ago
Half of what this video says about Rome is a lie :3
Laughingblades 3 months ago
No matter how much you limit state government if the business elites are allowed to gain unchecked wealth and power while never raising the wages of the working class to a Representative share of the wealth they produce, then the business elites will become government tyrannies unto themselves.
Until the workers own the work place and the people own the state there can never be freedom, but that would be socialism, that would be democracy, and you are trained to associate evil with that term.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
The Roman Republic put easily corruptible politicians in power who created an oligarchy that in turn gave rise to an imperial despotism. The last person to ever fight for the people was murdered and his mother drowned.
A constitutional democracy enjoys the same rule of law as a republic, but a Republic takes the power away from the people and puts it in the hands of politicians who's only duty is to get elected, who can promise anything they want and represent whomever they want once in power.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
The founders realized that in a time when it took months to get a message from Florida to Georgia, a Democracy could not work, because there was no way to find out what the people wanted and convey that information in a timely fashion. All your irrational fear mongering about lawless democracies doesn't apply to constitutional democracies that have a rule of law, so all you're left with is a matter of logistics.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
The Lynch Mob Scenario has nothing to do with a republic OMG you've been brainwashed hard.
Here this little scenario would be more representative of a republic than what you represent, the Lynch mob catches them and wants to hang him, then some sleeze bag politician says "Vote for me and I'll hang him" then they elect the sleeze bag politician and instead of hanging him he takes a bribe gives him a pardon then sends a man who might be innocent to the electric chair.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Consider a Lynch Mob in a constitutional democracy. They chase down an outlaw and catch him, then they all want to hang him, but he has civil rights enshrined in the constitution and if they do they'll all be arrested and tried in a court of law as murderers.
Unlike the scenario you present, which is just propaganda you yourself have been fed to convince you that you shouldn't have a voice in Washington, a constitutional democracy isn't anarchy
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Comment removed
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Constitutions are important for any system of government that does not wish to devolve into anarchy or despotism.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
"Republic Ruled by Law" Seriously? Seriously? You're shitting me. And how is a constitutional democracy not also ruled by law? And how is a republic, where a cabal of politicians claim to speak for you rather than allowing you to speak for yourself, any more rule of law than a constitutional democracy?
There is nothing about a republic that promises you a true rule of law, you could end up with a crime syndicate running your country like you have now.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Communism is also anarchistic by it's very nature, neither socialism nor communism allow for despots to rule over them, the only role of any despot or monarch in either system is to bring it about then step down, and communism differs in a great many respects from socialism. You know what just look this stuff up yourself this video is factually inaccurate on these systems, it's the same bullshit propaganda you've been fed in high school without having the terms ever clearly defined to you.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Socialism is when the workers own the work place and the people own the government.
When applied to Business socialism is worker's cooperatives, when the workers own a representative share of the company they work for and take home wages representative of the prosperity of their company, so that labor controls the means of production and democratically governs the work place.
When applied to politics socialism is when the people are the state and democratically decide it's functions.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Also the far right has no provisions against government. Left to right is a scale of economic and political ideologies that range from Anarcho Capitalism to Corporate Despotism on the Right, and Anarcho Communism (a naive unobtainable utopia) to compulsory collectivism on the far left.
On both the left and right there are ideas and ideologies that can be found anywhere on a spectrum of equity and liberty. And sadly, the American People have no clue what socialism or socialization even are.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
It's sad to see people attack democracy.
The reason America was founded as a Republic was because under the limitations of communication and transit at the time a Democracy was not possible for any nation larger than a city state. A Constitutional Republic has all of the same problems and all of the same protections that a Constitutional Democracy has, except that a Republic is made up of easily corruptible men who claim to speak for you rather than allowing you to have a voice.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
I don't even have to watch the video to answer.
America's true form of government is an Oligarchical Republic, just like the many that existed before America, where the working class has no representation and the demagogues elected to represent the people instead take their voice away and act as tyrants who represent only the business elite.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
Mobs are So VERY NAIVE!
All young people like them Need to KNOW that Soros and Piven and other Elitists are On Record saying they Want to Destroy the USA and Make a One World Government, where EVERYBODY (except them of course) will have EQUAL INCOME.
That would mean Every American would get about 1 or 2 Thousand $ per year for All their Needs - Housing, Clothes, Food, Everything!
So they are Doing the Class Warfare 'stuff' in order to Make themselves Very Dirt Groveling Poor!
3martijns 3 months ago
@3martijns The funny thing about mobs is that they are all followers of an idea. And of course the idea and reasoning behind it are someone else s certainly not the mobs.
What these elites are saying is that we all are equally responsible for evolution of society and the betterment of man. That there are no special individuals who create or are more more productive than anyone else thus not requiring incentive.
Richdanahuff 3 months ago
Protestor Mobs are just Like the Tea Party, if Mature Good Citizens are the Same as Drugged Useless Bums! hahaha
Their basic message: " We are Waiting for our Commie Puppetmaster to Tell Us Manipulated Tools What and How and When and Where to go and do Whatever!!
3martijns 3 months ago
This Info is Directly Related to the Anarchy of 'Wall Street' Mobs (Anarchy), and their Relationship with obama/Dems/Libs/Soros/Commies, etc.
Tea Party is trying to Fight for a Republic.
Leftists Want an Oligarchy!!
3martijns 3 months ago
MsSexySocialist ... Please do not write. I gave up on you long ago as a hopeless, genetic democrat/socialist.. You have no credibility when it comes to examination of facts. You choose to spout off from your talking points. Kool-Aid and whatever you smoke has overcome any sense of reason on your part. So bug off and join up with the Muslims ... you have no place in the America I served as a Marine.
I said it twice in hopes you get the point!
AmishRAdio 3 months ago
@AmishRAdio
It can be hard to get the point when you can't seem to figure out something as basic as how to link youtube comments properly. ^^
I'd wouldn't be surprised if when you served as a marine you shot more of your own squad than the Muslims you hate so much. Guess you probably hated the gays in the army more huh?
You can reiterate the same meaningless comment all you like - it only makes you look like even more of a failure ^_^
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
MsSexySocialist ... Please do not write. I gave up on you long ago as a hopeless, genetic democrat/socialist.. You have no credibility when it comes to examination of facts. You choose to spout off from your talking points. Kool-Aid and whatever you smoke has overcome any sense of reason on your part. So bug off!
AmishRAdio 3 months ago
@AmishRAdio These kids and the modern education system. College is no longer an institution of higher learning it is an indoctrination of some professors personal beliefs. If she wants to learn she will seek out an informed group of well read/learned individuals and discuss a topic and allow reason to prevail.
Richdanahuff 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ron paul 2012
TheGentleman18 3 months ago
The 'test' is loaded. How does one answer a question similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Your handle, MsSexySocialist suggests your bias and the compass charts, though cute, don't even use the word conservative. From what I could see it seems what I think of as conservative, they call liberal which fits what I would expect is a desire to confuse which is part and parcel of the socialist bag of dirty tricks.
AmishRAdio 4 months ago
@AmishRAdio
You didn't link this comment so I didn't see it until now.
Conservative is on the chart; conservatism = authoritarian-right
Ron Paul's style of anti-government capitalism = libertarian-right
Stalin and Mao's statist totalitarian "socialism" = authoritarian-left
And my own beliefs are libertarian-left
Examples of which include; Gandhi, Chomsky, Howard Zinn, William Morris, Oscar Wilde, Murray Bookchin.
And examples in history include the Spanish Revolution of 1936 (during civil war).
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
Keep our republic??? Whay the fuck is this tool talking about? This country has and always will be an Oligarchy. Or more specificaly a plutarchy.
capt251978 4 months ago
Corporate fascism rules America now and has for some time. Oligarchy also appliies pretty well.
heartfire451 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OPEN YOUR MIND(S)------------------------>
wars, atomic bomb,collapse of the world wide economic system, uncontrollabe riots (london), revolutions (the arab revolutions of 2011) terrorist attacks(oslo/wtc), government who "controls" human mind and everything around, chernobyl, fukushima, katrina, ike ,sri lanka (2006), eathquakes, floods, drought, deaths of sadam/bin laden, ufo's, inflation, opening universal consciousness, depletion of earth, AND SO ON!
unktzor 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we live in oligarchy
SMuffTlk 5 months ago
Comment removed
SMuffTlk 5 months ago
What is America's True Form of Government? July-31-2011--The true American form of government was meant to be a constitutional republic not a democracy, or anything else. Democracy means mob rule. 51% of the people rule the other 49%.
Education ,constitution ,republic ,democracy ,monarchy ,ben franklin ,
thomas jefferson ,revolution ,independence ,irs , fbi ,american sovereignty ,
britain founding fathers, VIKEN Z KOKOZIAN ,INFO-AWARENESS,
TRUTH-PERCEPTION, 88888FORCE ,
88888FORCE 5 months ago
Anarchy done right isn't that bad, just because there is an Anarchy doesn't mean there is no law, or police of some sort, it just means no one has to much power.
ubertubered 6 months ago
@ubertubered your describing a republic, in anarchy nobody has any power everyone is free to do watever, but in a republic power is spread out so everyone has power. basically anarchy means everyone is equal beacuse everyone has no power, in a republic everyone is equal because everyone, has the same power
kingz8ter 6 months ago
@ubertubered That's wrong Anarchy literally means there is no law there is no power, there is no police, nothing at all.
ThatHaloGuy117 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are anonymous, we are aware of the corruption in the world's governments and their apathy for the human lives because of money.
we are aware of the governments' attempt to cover on the news of the rebellions to keep us as slaves for the current system.
we are anonymous, we declare war on the corrupted system, join the plan to get your freedom and rights back. you are a human being, your life has value. we are anonymous, we are legion, expect us!
whatis-theplan(dot)org
f3r3nANON 6 months ago
the true government of freedom is to govern yourself...not for the majority to govern the minority...for you to govern yourself is true freedom
longfootbuddy 6 months ago
mssexysocialist uses a comedian as her spokesman...How ironic. Her lunacy is hard to comprehend. Not a neuron is firing.
fairman1952 6 months ago
Wonderful video. Thanks for posting! Lets hope America wakes up soon!
TheJoeE71 7 months ago
Washington didn't become president until 1789, following the terms of Presidents Hanson, Boudinot, Mifflin, Lee, Gorham, St. Clair and Griffin. But Hanson and the others got a bad press, according to a story in The Star, December 2, 1975, and Washington, Franklin and others soon stole the spotlight. .
nuadditioncool 7 months ago
i may be wrong but im pretty sure republic means "back to the people"
frombaerum 7 months ago
@frombaerum c.1600, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public"
aivilik 6 months ago
So let me get this straight; Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, Marxism...oh hell, you said etc, so everything is Left wing, and on the Right wing there is nothing, not even Anarchy (which doesn't exist anyway) even though it's on the other end? Just want to get it straight.
Xelanderthomas 7 months ago
@Xelanderthomas The left/right paradigm is a fallacy in its entirety. Quit thinking left or right. It's a flawed paradigm espoused by liberals/progressives to throw people off track of the actual situation, which is as this video describes accurately.
aivilik 6 months ago 3
@aivilik Okay, but you have to admit there is a difference between more freedom and less freedom. Either you are free to live your life the way you want or there are some restrictions. You are correct the paradigm of left/right is a construct to actually obfuscate the desire shared by many to control the masses. If we can redirect the "right" to support more freedom the left/right paradigm will be useful to some degree. Watching the actions of individuals is the bottom line.
ThinkersAndSinkers 3 months ago
so... are you pro gay marriage?
swismister 8 months ago
@swismister There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Marriage is a Christian institution. Christianitycondems homosexuality, so there is no 'gay marriage'. Homosexuals may only have a 'civil union'.
aivilik 6 months ago
Excellent well documented!
The true evil doers of humanity are the private central bankers, the money lenders, they are the masters of deception, they cause wars thru deception and propaganda and divide humanity=divide and conquer. Private central banks thru out the world are the true evil doers of the planet.
MsLibertyforall100 8 months ago
We fit the video's definition of a republic more today, where the rule of law has established civil rights legislation to protect the interests and rights of minorities. Of course we are on the right track now, our government, defined more precisely as a representative democratic republic has improved.
Aleron20x 8 months ago
One thing I find funny about this videos misleading definitions of government is how our government is defined by a republic under rule of law which avoids the majority rule which this video defines as democracy, and which this video implies the US is moving towards. If one thinks about it, according to this video's definitions the founding fathers set the US up as a democracy with a majority rule, minorities such as blacks had their rights trodden upon by the majority.
Aleron20x 8 months ago
Some of the things the constitution of the US (and any constitution for that matter) do are oppressive. The men who draft effectively give themselves power and the power to do things that are against freedom. I think government and constitutions are better if as many people as possible have a say in them.
The US constitution is an amazing document and guarantees real freedoms that at the time of its drafting were not experienced by much of the world.
Pure democracy is an enemy of free people
LongHairedLoser 9 months ago
First of the all the writers of the constitution gave themselves powers that no one bestowed upon them.
The constitution also gives the power of the government to tax the public. This effectively gives the government the ability to take property away from its citizens without consent. The constitution says it will establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. This is all so vague it can be used to justify many acts which could harm the people.
LongHairedLoser 9 months ago
@LongHairedLoser
which is the reason we are a democratic republic. Our government cannot raise taxes because there are laws in place that state it must be agreed upon by the other branches of government. No individual can raise taxes, and any group that would strive to do so would find themselves out of their seats come the next election.
evilmasterful 8 months ago
Representatives approved the document. A document which starts 'We the people' should have been approved by the people otherwise it should have read 'We the states'. The common people of the 13 colonies were never given the opportunity to view of draft the constitution.
Every 'farm poke' should have been able to vote on it because they would be under its rule. Why on earth should people consent to be ruled under anything without consent?
LongHairedLoser 9 months ago
@LongHairedLoser
representatives are used so things can be done efficiently. If every person was to vote on the matter especially back then the constitution would never have been made. It took weeks for mail to get anywhere, in that time there would have been no way to calculate how many voted for or against. votes would have been lost along mail routes and it would eventually divulge into a mess.
evilmasterful 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@King100Joe "and this is actally my power. Here we will kill you by armed force of human beings. but i will kill the rest of the people with the plagues of famine and death."
Evidently you've been listening to Charlie Sheen too much lately.
I'll just leave you too it. Psycho = )
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@King100Joe Can you please stop writing nonsensical comments on Youtube. If you are going to comment at least try to make sense so people can understand what your argument is, otherwise go to university and learn something about the world and try to be constructive and intelligent in your comments so we can at least try to take you seriously. I'm a teacher for your information, and i feel sorry for your lack of education and astonishing stupidity.
jemmre 9 months ago
@King100Joe, I could resort to calling you many words, but instead i will be an adult and use reasoned argument. What does an engine have to do with freedom, last time i check we were evolved living organisms not machines. Are you trying to say that in order to be free we have to be turned into cogs in the capitalist machine? When did i blame reason? And threatening to kill somebody because you don't agree with them doesn't do you any favors.
jemmre 9 months ago
The founding fathers never put the constitution up to vote among the general people of the 13 colonies when it should have. The constitution was only passed narrowly and only who votes would have been needed to defeat it when it was originally voted in.
I am not a left wing idiot. I am just fed up of people holding up the American constitution up on a pedestal where it cannot be criticized or talked about.
LongHairedLoser 9 months ago
@King100Joe
Most leftists do want to limit government actually - myself especially.
In fact, it was the aspiration of almost all classical socialists to eventually dissolve the state and centralized government entirely in favor of a system of decentralized participatory democracy.
In the modern day however -where big business is as powerful as the state itself- we see government as perhaps the lesser of two evils in the short term. As at least the state has some accountibility to the public.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@King100Joe
Yes - that's why it's nonsensical. It's an attempt to try to associate all forms of political science traditionaly held to be "left-wing" with statism and totalitarianism.
Also, don't capitalize entire sentenses for emphasis. It makes you look like an angry lunatic.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
A problem with a constitution is that people are left to interpret it. The US constitution was never approved by the people of the 13 colonies and contains phrases that should make any American uneasy.
LongHairedLoser 9 months ago
This entire video is nonsensical. Then again what would you expect from the proto-fascist John Birch society.
Tell me, if "No Government" is on the far-right, why has Anarchism as a political movement been perenially identified as being on the Left?
If anyone here wants a REAL assesment of the political spectrum, go to "political compass.org".
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Left-right. It doesn't matter. They could have used either side. The point is to protect the rights of the people which falls in the middle. They could have said anarchy was on the far left, and all the others were on the far right. It really doesn't matter. It works both ways, they were just using that to prove their point. The point is to have limited government. I don't believe in the false left-right paradigm anyway.
Kennedy1op 9 months ago 20
@Kennedy1op
Limited government is in itself a highly desireble thing, but knowing the John Birch society I think it's safe to say this wasn't their intention.
They think all politics that fall on the "traditional" left of the political spectrum is synonymous with totalitarianism.
MsSexySocialist 9 months ago
@Kennedy1op The left/right paradigm is a logical fallacy. The reality is that the difference between the two main political (policy) philosophies is 'personal responsibility' vs. 'lack of personal responsibility' in the context of what belongs to others; i.e. wealth, resources, freedom, etc. Conservatism promotes the conservation of the property and rights of others, whereas liberalism promotes the expense (waste) of the property and rights of others.
aivilik 7 months ago
@aivilik
Personal responsibility?
All i see with capitalists is how the exploit others and dump and pollute without giving a single thought to how their actions affect others. Where was the personal responsibility when they sent soldiers to die for them? Where was the personal responsibility when they stole trillions from the public? Freedom? don't make me laugh you dont even know what real freedom is.
Furthermore we don't have private property, Only the top 3% have this privilege.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 First off, I never mentioned 'capitalists'. I mentioned liberals and conservatives. I have never advocated pollution dumping, and a conservative wouldn't either. Now let's not confuse RINOs with conservatives. Of course there are members of the republican party who would do any or all of the things that you eluded to, but a party is just that: a political party in a two-party system. You could just as easily call them party A and party B. What you call them doesn't matter. (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 It is possible to have conservative democrats (though not likely), and 'liberal' or 'progressive' republicans (this is more likely). Party affiliation doesn't matter. The value system that one subscribes to matters. The two opposing value systems at odds are conservatism and liberalism (not to be confused with classic liberalism, the meaning of which has been bastardized by 'progressives', who are in fact, REgressive in their values and policies). (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Conservatism is a 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' value system. There is no hypocrisy; there is no hidden agenda, there are no lies. RINOs are 'Republicans In Name Only', meaning that they are actually liberals, or a wolf in sheep's clothing. Liberals are just liars, plain and simple. many of their lies contain a grains of truth, as the most effective lies always do, but they are lies, nonetheless. When you know history, you'll know that what I say is true. As far as the (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 so-called 'exploitation' of people by 'capitalists', people cannot be exploited unless they allow themselves to be exploited, at which point, is becomes consent. People consent to their own exploitation all the time: it's called having a job working for someone else. The #1 rule of working for someone else is you do what you're told, period. If you don't like it, you find another job. It's a dictatorship; always has been; always will be, out of necessity. A successful (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 can't be run by consensus. All successful businesses are dictatorships. The most successful businesses are 'benevolent' dictatorships, but they are dictatorships all the same. No one is being 'exploited'. That's playing the 'victim' card. "Oh, boo-hoo! I'm being 'exploited'!" Go find another job if you don't like it & see how much better that works out for you. Working for others is not one's only option in America. That's why so many people come here from other countries. (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 to do with starting wars than our own politicians do, though. Our government has been corrupted by the Banksters/NWO for a long time and it's coming to a head now. People are beginning to wake up; I just hope it's not too late. Stealing trillions from the public is not a conservative action; it's a liberal one. I know what freedom is. It's what our men and women in the armed forces and in the earlier days, the militia died for. Freedom is what the NWO is trying to take from us now.
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 I know our property isn't entirely private, and that's one of the very wrong things about the direction the United States has been going for a long time now. You still have to pay property taxes, and if you don't, the government will take your land. Then there is eminent domain 'law', which isn't even Constitutional. What top 3% have the privilege of owning private land? To whom are you referring?
aivilik 7 months ago
@aivilik
Private property is wrong.
Private Ownership of land and resources is morally despicable.
Non of these native cultures recognised private property and thus never had the social problems that are prevelant today.
Private property simply ignores the interdependence one has with the land and other people. It is the appropriation of resources for exploitation.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 The ability to own your own property is not wrong. It is what makes we Americans 'citizens' rather than 'subjects' of a monarchy or oligarchy. The fact that we have to pay property taxes is wrong. There is plenty of property for everyone, the problem is liberals who would skim off the top of the profits of your productivity. THAT'S wrong. Others have no right to the fruits of your labor, in the same way that you don't have a right to the fruits of anyone else's labor. (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Someone is going to own the land whether you like it, agree with it, or not. Your only option is to choose whether you want your own piece of land, on which to raise your family, or always be indebted to the property owner such as in the scenario that you have stated: public land only. So-called 'native ' cultures are not educated, or developed medically, technologically, industrially, militarily, or in many other ways. They are not advanced societies. (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 So-called 'social problems' are not the most important aspect of a quality life. The ability for people to own their own piece of property does not 'ignore' the interdependence between people and the land; in fact, it accentuates that interdependence. People want to take care of their little piece of land. No one buys land just to let it go to hell or to waste. They buy it for a reason, and that reason is typically to improve the quality of their lives in some way, even (cont'd)
aivilik 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 if it is as an investment property. There you go with the 'exploitation' / victimization ideology again. The land is used more efficiently when privately owned than when publicly owned (how many farms do you see on public land?), but it is used to farm and ranch either way, it's just more efficient/less wasteful when privately owned and controlled, so your 'exploitation' argument is a fallacy. You sound like a socialist to me; bad logic; which means that you have a mental illness.
aivilik 7 months ago
Efficiency by its definition is the abscence of waste. Capitalism is far more wasteful than every other economic system in history. It creates monopolies where capitalists accumulate more until they can determine the very laws that govern society. You can see examples of this with corporations like Monsanto who have virtually patented the pig and use whatever legal means to force farmers to accept GMO seeds. Therefore private farms do not exist for the majority of farmers.
kingmafi6699 7 months ago
@kingmafi6699 Farmers are not forced to accept GMO seeds. They DO have a choice. Life is about choosing; making decisions; no one ever said that making those decisions would be easy. What economic system do you think is more effective or efficient than capitalism? NAME one, if you can, which of course you can't, because there has never been one. What kind of economic system doesn't create monopolies? Legislation is what prevents monopolies, not economic systems. Economic systems only make money.
aivilik 7 months ago
@aivilik
One which eliminates private property, free of market coercion, free of state control where technology and labor are used to maximize humanity rather than profit.
kingmafi6699 6 months ago
@kingmafi6699 So let me get this straight: property would not be privately owned, nor controlled by the government? That's certainly interesting, but there's no way. Either people are going to want their own property, or the government is going to at LEAST want to make money off of it somehow; property taxes, rent, etc). And I have a feeling that what you refer to as 'market coersion is actually competition, which will never go away. (cont'd)
aivilik 6 months ago
@kingmafi6699 As long as there are 'haves' and 'have nots', the have nots will always try to get a slice of the pie, even if it's on the plate of someone else who 'has'. You can't stop envy or want. And just how do you think that technology and labor are going to be 'used' to 'maximize humanity' rather than profit? Are you willing to work for free? Because if you are, I have a job for you. One last thing: is there now, or has there ever been, an example of this utopia that you describe?
aivilik 6 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I don't think you understood the use of the visual aid. How can anarchy be indentified as being ruled by any government, ?? Anarchy being identified as being part of OUR political left makes no sense, People on the political left/right would not be anarchist they would be activist UNLESS they no longer support any government and refuse to obey its laws then it becomes anarchy and then falls under the no government spectrum.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff
I said "Anarchism", not the situation of "Anarchy".
Anarchism as a political and personal philosophy has existed since the 1840s when the Left-Socialist writer Pierre Joseph-Proudon declared himself to be an Anarchist and advocated a society without centralized government and instead supported a decentralized confederation of free municipalities and democratic control of the means of production.
As an outgrowth of anti-state socialism, Anarchism has ALWAYS been Left-wing.
MsSexySocialist 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist What exactly do you think happens when there is no central government ?, Russia was a federation that centralized around an ideology. Several municipalities who may not agree is what has historically caused the centralized control to the point of absurdity. I understand what Anarchism is, someone who follows that philosophy would be an anarchist.
Live Free or Die
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff
Okay, that's a complete and utter misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what anarchism is.
I would think if you were to argue against an ideology you might actually try to look up some information about that ideology.
What with google, wikipedia, and dozens of subject-dedicated wikis, it really isn't that difficult.
Yet instead you chose to blindly assume what you thought it was based on simple first impression and agrued based on that?
I mean come on!
MsSexySocialist 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Here is Wikipedia,
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.[1][2] Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."[4]
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[5] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[8][9] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist OK I think you misunderstood the verbage. Traditional use of the term anarchy is lawless society I have been in anarchy situations in fact that is how governments are traditionally overthrown during the traditional anarchy. life experience travelling the world and being involved with governments and being well read. The idea that there can be a leaderless government without becoming under authority of a power hungry individual is insane hence the USSR.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff
To reiterate YET AGAIN, I said Anarchism - not anarchy. You seem to think the word "anarchy itself is synonymous with "Chaos". A situation of anarchy without order can lead to chaos, but when coupled with organization can lead to a society far better structured and organized than any current one.
The word anarchy literally means "without rulers" the rule of the state, the rule of oligarchs, or the rule of the market.
(Cont)
MsSexySocialist 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist The word has a few meanings, in OUR vernacular it is often used in reference to lawlessness. I posted the wikipedia description for you. Again your description is socialism with a twist collectivism is collectivism is collectivism. Explain how you achieve order in a society full of individuals with individual goals and initiative?
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff
You really feel the need to post a wikipedia description of a subject I have a small library dedicated to?
Anyway, in answer to your question, the apparent dichotomy between what's commonly called individualism and collectivism is a false one
The real dichotomy is between horizontalism and verticalism - dominating hierarchy versus free association between individuals
Look up the wikpedia article "Participism" if you want a clearer idea as I cant really lay it out in 400 characters
MsSexySocialist 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist I have a degree in Poli sci I am well aware of what the theory is I am curious as to how you believe in the idea that you can have a culture with individualism will function without collectivism to some extent. ?? I appreciate the time you are taking I remember this same ideology was being advocated in academic circles when I was younger the longer I live in the real world and not acadamia I recognize it as unrealistic, Nirvana does not exist in this world.
Richdanahuff 7 months ago
@Richdanahuff
(Cont)
The political tradition known as anarchism has nothing to do with "lawlessness" or a return to some kind of societal vacuum without any kind of organization or coordination.
It advocates replacing the centralized state with a decentralized system of confederation where decision making power flows from the bottom up instead of the top down and founded on principles of direct and participatory democracy - in the polity, workplace, and community.
MsSexySocialist 7 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Also if you actually had the brain capacity to comprehend this video then you would have understood what is clearly explained to you that anarchism is not a real political movement at all, but a process perpetrated by groups with agendas for different form of government. Simpletons like you msSexySocialists make up 99% of the socialists in the world, you are what Lenin called "useful idiot" :D
killerbee2k 5 months ago
@killerbee2k "anarchism is not a real political movement at all, but a process perpetrated by groups with agendas for different form of government"
Listen to Alex Jones much? ^^
MsSexySocialist 5 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Alex Jones is not only a scaremonger, but he is also a moron and the "right wing" equivalent of leftist sensationalist media ludicrously. So no I dont listen to Alex Jones much ;)
killerbee2k 4 months ago