Presidential Debate

[Gorzo]

I was less than enthralled by these debates, all of them. I think I may have just grown bitter towards it all. Living in Ohio, the king of swing states, I'm subjected to a barrage of tv and mail ads, political robo-calls, and billboards and bumper stickers everywhere I look. So tired of it, I just want it to stop - pains me to think of what the money used on all this advertising spent on torturing my state could have been used for.

On a mod note however, please let me just say that I know .politics. is a touchy subject, and while I hope people can control their opinions and passions on the matter, there have been a couple comments that worry me as to where this thread might go.
Please keep the language under control and respect each others differences and opinions. Thank you.

[Piotr]

Last night I had a little twitter debate with certain BJ on the topic

My conclusion was that democracy is an epic fail, and the alternative is nomocracy. The Law of this forum is a product of my other hobby, which is creating a law which would be applicable to running communities such as this one, USA and Eve Online.

[Dudecore]

Democracy is an illegitimate form of government. Anarchy is the only way for people to be free, and the natural law to take over.

Additionally, the constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. We have the natural law. The founding fathers didn't want to add the bill of rights because they felt the natural law already gave us those rights.

You have the right to your person:
1st amendment - prior restraint
4th amendment - illegal searches and seizure.
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases
Amendment 6 Right to a fair trial
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases
Amendment 8 Bail, fines, punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the People

You have the right to your property:
2nd amendment - right to bare arms
3rd amendment - no quarter
4th amendment - illegal searches and seizure
Amendment 7 Rights in civil cases

[Langku]

The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.

[Mikefrompluto]

Democracy is an illegitimate form of government. Anarchy is the only way for people to be free, and the natural law to take over.

Additionally, the constitution doesn't "give" us any rights. We have the natural law. The founding fathers didn't want to add the bill of rights because they felt the natural law already gave us those rights.

This is the truest and smartest thing ive seen on this thread (srs.) Either anarchy, or a modified form of communism is the only way we can work as a society.

[Piotr]

The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.

If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.

[Langku]

The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.

If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.

Agreed. I wish we had a smartocracy where the masses were swayed by the legitimacy of the candidates' arguments.

[Dudecore]

The Candidates skirted the debate topics quite a bit. I understand that a large part of a debate is to address the public and sway opinion but I would like to see them stick to the issues more and their agendas less.

If you are a candidate and try this in democracy, the other guy wins.

Agreed. I wish we had a smartocracy where the masses were swayed by the legitimacy of the candidates' arguments.

No government, no candidates. No man should claim dominion over man. A candidates that have an ability to raise money and healthy believe in god would win over an astrophysicist that doesn't.

We don't need leaders, they make us distrust one another and our goals as humans. We have natural law to obey, no reason to give our freedom to someone else or the masses.

[Piotr]

Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.

[Dudecore]

Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.

We have a law. We can still house people dangerous do society, and free people who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs.

The power would be in communities of people helping other people advance. Localized communities of people engaging in free market economics.

We'd still have a need for prisons, and would have to voluntarily donate to prison programs.

The facts are, the government seizes our money and spends it on everything. From buying jet fighters and bombs, to fund an illegal war on drugs, to austerity programs and helping the homeless. It's not right to take my money and donate it to things I don't agree with.

[Dudecore]

Unfortunately anarchy doesn't solve prisoner's dilemma. You need some kind of law.

We have a law. We can still house people dangerous do society, and free people who are in prison for victimless crimes like drugs.

The power would be in communities of people helping other people advance. Localized communities of people engaging in free market economics.

We'd still have a need for prisons, and would have to voluntarily donate to prison programs.

The facts are, the government seizes our money and spends it on everything. From buying jet fighters and bombs, to fund an illegal war on drugs, to austerity programs and helping the homeless. It's not right to take my money and donate it to things I don't agree with.

"Have to voluntarily donate..." Sounds compulsory to me. That would completely defy the point of anarchy, wouldn't it?

As would having any law, really. Even natural law is defined as "binding," and true freedom means no boundaries.

By nature, people will look out for their own self-interest. Without any official code backed by enforcement of some kind, why should they do otherwise? Have you ever seen the looting that preceeds a natural disaster (or whenever there's an excuse to do so)? This stuff actually occurs. Doesn't just have to be criminals; a good percentage of the average person will steal a flatscreen if there's no legal repercussions...

I think that's people's problem with anarchy is that they think its lawless. If we obey natural law, then stealing someone's flat screen would be breaking the law. It is the perception of the majority of this country that laws are the only reasons people don't do bad things.

The reason people don't do the wrong thing is because they're not that type of person. They wouldn't want it to be done to them. If you think laws give you freedom, or the government does, you're horribly mistake.

When a natural disaster occurs and people loot is because they're disobeying precedent laws, common laws and natural laws. In each instance they're disobeying laws. Natural law wouldn't have people robbing and stealing because we're able to enforce natural law. We can still even have a legal system based upon upholding natural law.

If you (edit: the hypothetical "you", not anyone specific) have a completely cynical view about the human race and our capacity to care about one another, then it's easy to see laws as the only thing governing man. But if you recognize our capabilities of helping one another without a lopsided legal system, broken Welfare state, a police force that serves the interests of corporations and a government that picks winners and losers and murders people around the world.

If people actually believed in natural law then we would give money to the less well off. People who can work and don't, people who are unemployable, people who have been given a bum rap. We have to take care of them, or else they'll ruin our communities and our freedom.

Throwing them in jail isn't going to do anything, we pay for that anyway in the end. If we view people as cynically and have an "us against them" mentality, the ends are going to be met.

[Dudecore]

By definition, "anarchy" is synonymous with "lawlessness." Look it up in the dictionary if you don't believe me.

It's not that I hold a dim view of people as a whole. The looters and thieves are a minority of the population, to be sure. But that minority will screw it up for everyone else.

Well we can call it whatever we want. I also hate dysecting posts like this, but it's one of the limitations of the Internet. Just because a minority of the people will screw it up, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Are a few idiot people going to use this as an opurtunity to rape, pillage and steal? Perhaps. But is that any better/worse then the system we have now that throws people in prision for victimless crimes, financially ruins people's lives or murders people in other countries (on our dime)? Seems to me as though we have a myriad of problems now that we're unwilling to address, because the alternative might be more difficult to envision.

While I believe in the free market and less government involvement in public affairs, we need them to play some form of referee role. Their decision to repeal a number of regulations allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to run wild. Not because they are "evil corporations," but because they will do what is best for the company. That's their job. The government is supposed to police them.

This is categorically incorrect. The government backed their poor investments. A corporation interested in making money would never make poor investments like that. The government (and rightly so) wanted low income people to be able to afford housing. So Fannie Mae and the other investors came along and said "we will give then loans, but when they default we want the money we loaned them back". Left to their own devices they'd never done that, there would be no money in it. Government involvement made those things happen.

And self-interest does not have to be a negative thing: given the choice between the life of your family and the lives of your neighbors, who will you pick? Between feeding your child and repairing the road, which will it be?

Those are choices you're able to make without someone else confiscating your money to do so. How is legislating behavior going to change this?

This is why we have taxes: to ensure that the common good is still attended to. The "general welfare" stated in the Preamble (not our flawed welfare system). You may not like some of the places it is spent, but they are trying to meet the goals of the masses to the best of their ability. Not every one shares your desires, or mine. Pretend your tax money went into education, if that's what you believe in, and I'll say mine was used to maintain the freeway. Effectively, with the fluid nature of money, that's what happened.

That is effectively saying that because "some good" is being done, then "some bad" has to come with it. Why should anyone take my money and spend it on bombs? I don't believe in it. I believe in helping the poor. I'm not free to spend my money, it's taken from me (under penalty of law) and used to do really bad things I don't believe in. I want to choose how my money should be spent. Just because people will spend their money on stupid things doesn't change the fact that they should be able to do so.

You can't legislate behavior, and you can't plan economics. We're slaves to a system that we have no say in, our money is taken at gunpoint and spent wherever someone else sees fit. Democracy is not a system the helps everyone like voting with your dollar does.

We're conditioned to be cynical of any processes we could actually utilized. an unfounded cynic is an obnoxious apathetic. We're kept isolated into demographics and marketed to be isolated. we're pitched a two party system that dont offer a new products but are just different brands.

[Milo109]

First of all, the fact that we can even debate this topic shows how lucky we compared to the majority of countries out there. That shows how much freedom we really have.
Second, anarchy is the worst idea ever. It relies on humans being fundamentally good. If we went back to anarchy we would basically descend back into the middle ages where various chiefs and self imposed kings ruled the land. Whoever controlled the weapons would controll the people,  brutality would run rampant.
3) Our government is horrible right now, but it's not the beginning of a totalitarian or communist state. Our government is too restricted to do anything of the kind, and neither candidate has anything to do with that. Nor will our individual rights be infringed upon.
4) The media is not at fault. Everyone blames things on the misinformed media. That's not true. It's the idiocy of the people who only watch or read biased sources who are at fault. Our media is the most reliable source of information in the world.

[Dudecore]

First of all, the fact that we can even debate this topic shows how lucky we compared to the majority of countries out there. That shows how much freedom we really have.

I disagree again. Just because they haven't infringed upon our natural rights entirely (our rights to our person) doesn't mean that we should somehow be thankful. Illegal governments that infringe upon the rights of the people are at fault. They don't give us rights (we're born with them), they can only take them away with violence and breaking of natural laws.

Second, anarchy is the worst idea ever. It relies on humans being fundamentally good. If we went back to anarchy we would basically descend back into the middle ages where various chiefs and self imposed kings ruled the land. Whoever controlled the weapons would controll the people,  brutality would run rampant.

Then you're subscribing to the notion that:
A) laws are the reasons people don't do this now.
B) that natural law doesn't exist.
C) there would be something to gain from these types of activities. That a free people need to be ruled with violence.

3) Our government is horrible right now, but it's not the beginning of a totalitarian or communist state. Our government is too restricted to do anything of the kind, and neither candidate has anything to do with that. Nor will our individual rights be infringed upon.
4) The media is not at fault. Everyone blames things on the misinformed media. That's not true. It's the idiocy of the people who only watch or read biased sources who are at fault. Our media is the most reliable source of information in the world.

The media helps control the flow of information and has a bias. It's either here nor there. It just symptomatic of a cynical people

[Milo109]

We should be thankful that our rights our upheld. This is the first time in thousands of years civilization has advanced enough to let this happen. We are extremely privileged to live in a state where this happens.
Also if you think anarchy will lead to anything but that is ridiculous. Look at history, name a single occurrence where natural law "worked". There will always be people more powerful than others, and that will always lead to exploitation.