Time for a True Party of Freedom.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


I was just replying to those that were advocating 'no government' to solve the problem you presented.

Sorry it bothered you.

reply to post by ANOK


We'll solve all the problems by changing ourselves, since we're the cause of nearly all of them.

"Party pooper" me.

There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution

The Police: Spirits in the Material World

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by ~Lucidity

 

Hey Lucidity, Did you read the post? Did I say anywhere in the original, or in any of my replies that their should be "no government"? This one is freaking me out a little. What are these people reffering to? I'm not willing to be paranoid enough to believe that several disinfo agents would mob a site all at once. Though I wouldn't be suprised. Honestly am I nuts? "I mean more so than usual" or is this REALLY BIZZARE?

I didn't say no government or imply or infer that you did either You didn't do that. I don't know what they're on about.

I just said no parties. We might not need any. Think about it.

I can't answer the rest. I don't know you well enough.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Thank you, making me feel a little more sane. Or at least as much as possible.

Originally posted by dreamwalker74
reply to post by seataka

 

Actually one of the alternatives was the "common sense" party. I know, cheesy, but to the point.

Such a thing might work - and there is precedent, Thomas Pain's "Common Sense" which is required reading for all patriots.

The demon that ruins socialism, communism and democracy, is not the party platform. It is when truth is abandoned for expediency -or- profit.

The hidden load that eventually breaks a citizens spirit, regardless of 'party', the burden that destroys his willingness and ability to perservere, are THE LIES - and most damaging to the majority are lies for profit.

A man can carry the weight and the burden needed for his family and tribe, but when he is called upon to carry the burden of an idle class, who profit from lies - it is his family, tribe and nation that suffers.

I was asked by the republican committee chairmain in my district to run for State Delegate.

I asked one question:

"In the oath taken when one joins the Republican party, one agrees to abide by the party position on each issue coming up for a vote. I asked, if my concience says that such and such a bill is NOT good for MY CONSTITUENTS would I be required to vote the party line? I was told that I would be required to vote the party line... So I declined to run as the republican delegate to the legislature in Virginia, because the oath of office 'which everyone ignores occassionaly' is an OATH. and I would be turned into a liar at some time in the near future by taking such an oath.

That dread trumped the stars in my eyes.

Seataka


[edit on 28-7-2010 by seataka]

Originally posted by seataka
The demon that ruins socialism, communism and democracy, is not the party platform. It is when truth is abandoned for expediency -or- profit.

I suppose I'll agree mostly so I don't have to elaborate too much. The thing that ruins these -isms, is the thing that brings them to life. And so, if particular -isms aren't relevent to the outcome, because what they ostensibily regulate doesn't exist, then they are unneeded.

reply to post by seataka


Thank you for taking, the people into mind and not joining for power in and of itself. I myself have been asked to run several times throughout the years. I turn it down every time , because I need to run on my own ideals, not those of a specific party.Even if it is a third party.

reply to post by seataka


\edit: for repeat post

[edit on 28-7-2010 by dreamwalker74]

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by ANOK

 

We'll solve all the problems by changing ourselves, since we're the cause of nearly all of them.

There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution

Socialism is not a political solution, it's economics.
I am not a revolutionary.

Yes we need to change ourselves, and the first thing we need to do is shake off the years of conditioning that convinces people capitalism is freedom, war is peace, and socialism is everything but what it actually is.

Socialism is simply putting the means of production in the hands of those who do the producing, you and me. You folks want to make it into something else because you fear it due to your conditioning.

We can not change ourselves whilst the means of production are privately owned, and we are coerced to work most of our hours to purchase artificially scarce resources, then run home and veg in front of the state controlled conditioning box.

Capitalism encourages people to better their bank accounts, not themselves.

BTW you actually pay attention to what sting says lol?

[edit on 7/29/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Socialist anarchy is advocating corporations run everything with no individual property rights.

dictionary.reference.com...

A corporation is created (incorporated) by a group of shareholders who have ownership of the corporation, represented by their holding of common stock. Shareholders elect a board of directors (generally receiving one vote per share) who appoint and oversee management of the corporation. Although a corporation does not necessarily have to be for profit, the vast majority of corporations are setup with the goal of providing a return for its shareholders. When you purchase stock you are becoming part owner in a corporation.

So we have public ownership by the employees - check
Democratically elected oversight - check
Return on investment and labor - check

Sounds like democratic socialism is a totally corporate run world with no private property rights, only corporate property rights.

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW you actually pay attention to what sting says lol?

I'll leave the rest alone for now and just say that I just pay attention (mostly). If it resonates and I find it valid, I keep it in mind. I don't really care who said it.

Originally posted by ANOK

Capitalism encourages people to better their bank accounts, not themselves.

You give great quote....

regards
Seataka

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by ANOK

 

Socialist anarchy is advocating corporations run everything with no individual property rights.

No it doesn't.

Libertarian socialism is a political philosophy dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy, most famously the institutions of government and capitalism. It has gone by various names: libertarian communism, anarcho-communism, left-anarchism, and sometimes simply anarchism. Libertarian socialists believe in the abolition of privately held means of production and abolition of the state as unnecessary and harmful institutions.

Social Anarchism, Anarcho-Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, all the same thing.

Libertarian Socialism

(Please also see this web site: Anarchists Against Nationalism and National Socialism)

Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word "Anarchism". Anarchy, strictly meaning "without rulers", leads one to wonder what sort of system would exist in place of one without state or capitalist masters... the answer being a radically democratic society while preserving the maximal amount of individual liberty and freedom possible.

Libertarian Socialism recognizes that the concept of "property" (specifically, the means of production, factories, land used for profit, rented space) is theft and that in a truly libertarian society, the individual would be free of exploitation caused by the concentration of all means of wealth-making into the hands of an elite minority of capitalists.

flag.blackened.net...



[edit on 7/29/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


so...

If I have a job and decide not to work who fires me?

For that matter, who hires me?

I'm assuming places of employment have bosses that are put in place by an owner or board of directors of some sort. Who puts those people in power and decides when to remove them? How are those people chosen and put into power?

By a voting block of employees?

If employees vote to put these people in power, do they get one vote each or do they get votes according to stock ownership?

If there is no stock ownership, how is investment capital raised?

If I wanted to start a shoe making business, I don't understand how this would work. If I hire three employees, could they vote me out of my own business? If I can't own land, how would I start a business in the first place? If I can't own a business, why should I bother starting one?

Who owns what?

In a socialist system, the owner is clear - the State owns everything.

In an anarchist socialist system, nothing makes sense what-so-ever. I can't see who owns what or what motivates anyone to do anything.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Why can't you address what I've already said instead of keep changing the subject? You think you can catch me out with 'oh crap I never thought of that'? It will never happen, I was thinking about this before you were born mate.

You are not paying any attention. You seem stuck on this idea that I support a state system. You obviously are not paying any attention to anything I say, and until you do I'm not answering any more silly questions. If you understood what I've been saying you would be able to answer your questions for yourself, or work out a way it could be done using the ole grey matter.

I have proven with many quotes and articles that socialism requires no state or government. I have proven it is the favored economic system of Anarchists. Why would Anarchists support it?

Do you know who Bakunin was?

... freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality...

Do you understand what he's saying here?

The Russian revolutionary Micheal Bakunin is often presented as the 'founding father' of anarchism. He was a larger than life figure whose disputes with Marx in the 1st international form an essential role in the clarification of the role of the vanguard and of the state in the revolutionary process. Yet his concrete ideas on anarchist organisation are not so well known.

flag.blackened.net...

As a so called Anarchist you should at least have a grasp of Anarchist history. Unless you're not really an Anarchist.