I can't be the only one who thought this thread was going to be about mod elections.
I oppose voting all together as voting leads to the destruction of freedom. Why? Lets say you have radical Muslims who use the freedom of speech, and the freedom to vote to get rid of both. It leads to collectivism. If we had a state where freedom is held to the standard of untouchable by the state, then freedom will not be harmed. Voluntarism day is more effective and people have more power over the state than ever before. The state has no resources, all they have is what they have taken. But under nationalism and voluntarism people have the freedom to choose how much they want to give to the state. The money is an indication on how the leader is managing the money. If he is doing horrible, then they simply boycott the leader until the council pick a better alternative.
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/members/x-sf-med.54/
I am more of a rightist because it needs a hierarchy in government. Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.
Basically in order to be in the ballot you must have years of experience through the right rhetoric.
Who will protect their freedoms? The people. You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.
I'm no economist by any stretch of the imagination Sir, but I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises. My point being is that the state will have no power over the individual, and should be held at a moral standard so high that we must not corrupt it by voting.
The argument wasn't even backed up by history. Just ridiculous idealism.All I can think of is...
You can't deny that capitalism works it is the only system that truly benefits us. If we achieve it, then why change it? Why vote for politicians who would want to change it? I believe that state and business should be separate, both serve a purpose. The state was created to protect, and preserve free will, the safe haven of freedom which is the free market. I only want to enact the true intent of the law, and preserve the law the best way it can be done.Kid, you are a troll. You are ungrounded in reality and are wishing to enact a pie-in-the sky ideal that has been espoused since Plato. Morality will always fall to the greed of those who have evil in their hearts and arms at their side... a government is not inherently evil, but many of the people that join it are.
Consider yourself put on ignore.
I'll stick with reading Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises
I believe that state and business should be separate, both serve a purpose.
You focus on should, and not on what is true. I do not wish to shape a man's dream, but have a society where he has the freedom to do so. Also assume dreams are not real, but many have potential. There are many dreams and visions, and many have come true, due to human action. In the end, my plan, or your colonial minarchists plan, we both can agree the state interfering with the market has lead to poverty, war, and death, correct?
Of course and I realize this but name ONE system that man let it happen? None. I am saying what works best. I guess I'm having to branch out here even further.. But we both can agree on less government. The bigger the state the more corrupt. Correct?No, no we cannot agree. You are overlooking or discarding what man does. Forget the state or the business or the church or whatever, MANKIND will not allow your ideas to exist. There will always be those who are strong, those who are weak, those who prey on the weak, those who protect the weak, the greedy, the saints, the devils, the anything we can imagine because that is our history and your dreams are irrelevant against historical reality.
Take a "perfect" system. Men/ women run it, and we expect zero corruption to exist? No one would use their influence or take a bribe EVER? You're kidding yourself.
Yeah it's a theory... a theory that you've been spoon fed, to which you've clearly applied zero critical thinking and demonstrate zero original thought. This is exactly the kind of thing that I'd expect from someone who took a one-semester survey course and now thinks that he's an expert in both comparative politics and American politics. You're mashing up a bunch of buzzwords from different schools of thought and throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. That's not going to fly here.Keep in mind, this is just a theory. I realize it has kinks. But I also realize no government will ever be perfect.
What does that even mean? The left might hate the patriarchy, but it LOVES hierarchy. The left is all about big government, and you can't have big government without a massive bureaucracy to manage it and an hierarchy to oversee it.Last time I checked, the left hates hierarchy.
The same people who always have, since before the beginning of our country: men with guns who know their rights and are willing to resort to violence to ensure them.Who will protect their freedoms?
Bwahahahaha good one. Oh wait, you were serious?You also forget the nationalism that will increase the incentive to pay the voluntary tax, and to voluntary to join the military.
Ooh! Can I play this game too? I'll take "names I'll look up on Wikipedia and then toss out to make me look educated" for $500, Alex!Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, F.A. Hayek, Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises