When are people going to realize that the democratic process is a tool that people with power use to control people without power. It’s no different than any other political system on earth, and yes by that, I mean communism and fascism and socialism. They are all the same. Before all of you go off and call me crazy, (or whatever other derogatory term you prefer, I bet there will be many) try thinking about it for more than the amount of time it takes to write down your uneducated opinion. Try researching and idea forming. Don’t be just another moron with a keyboard and a password. Wake up to the truths that around you. This is our world and we are capable of making it into whatever we want without the supreme guidance of some guy, who’s no better than any of us, who wins a popularity contest. —Don’t Vote
This article appears in Oct 11-17, 2012.
Get a job!!!. But that means you would have to pry yourself away from playing World of WarCraft in your mother’s basement.
By the sounds of things, this is your third political bitch.
Some people have to work for a living. You should try it sometime.
McLean, Are you sure your e-meter is working properly. You sound like you have a lot more engrams to work through before you become a fully fledged thetan.
Whoever wins the election ,don’t blame me. I voted for Lord Xenu.
I’m outside of blame as well, Ivan. I’m voting for myself!
What’s with all the political bitches lately? The elections south of the border must be stirring up the government dissatisfaction pot.
I’m not complaining tho, it gives me a good outlet to vent, as well as a venue to start my uprising. Heh heh heh
you gotta love paul ryan, storming a soup kitchen for a photo op. what a pillock
Here’s the unvarnished truth – life is a trade off – I work, I get to live comfortably but not necessarily lavishly. That’s fucking jake with me. Put a wharf rat in the mayor’s chair for all I care ’cause it doesn’t matter who gets in – they all turn out the same. Just look at provincial politics if you don’t believe me. But I will vote, hopefully, for the rat.
Oh FFS Mclean! Just to point out, the fact that you are calling us “morons” and “uneducated” because, generally speaking, most of us here don’t agree with your line of thinking, does absolutely NOTHING to endear us (me) to your proposed form of collective-consciousness-reasoning gov’t (i.e. organizing ourselves without governance/ leader/ grand poobah), and in fact, only proves that it wouldn’t work because even you, the one so passionately trying to sell it to us the sheeple, are now resorting to name calling and insults all because we don’t agree with your point of view. How do you expect your system of non-government, spiritual-collective-connection to work, all of us re-forming our spiritual connections with each other to act as a single unit, when you yourself are polarizing the group?
So? Let’s have it. (Now’s your chance, don’t fuck it up.) Oh Puh-leeaassse enlighten us. Tell us what YOU propose? How do YOU think our city government/non-government should be formed? Instead of just constantly puking out “don’t vote, don’t vote, don’t vote”, how about you actually back up your opinions and provide some concrete evidence and EXPLAIN how you think this is to work? How can not voting possibly bring about ANY sort of change?
I won’t be holding my breath.
And the mayor is really nothing more than a figure-head position anyway. Cutting ribbons and turning sod with silver shovels. Representing the city at provincial/federal matters and the executive administrator, chairing council meetings and ensuring they follow agendas but he/she really doesn’t have any more decision making power than a city councillor.
It’s this sort of idealisim where the occupy movement, if they had any real organization, could take this country by storm, starting with each local municipality on up.
What the occupy movement lacks is leadership under a common goal. They all want the same thing but no one will stand behind anyone to move forward…. useless
agree with avast0 – if you are SOOO much more intelligent than this poor soul, please back up the rant with some substance. We can’t get behind the idea if it’s only in your head talking to the other voices in there.
What Avast said!
People will vote if they want to. So if you don’t like it take a chill pill and go into happy land.
hrmet, a lack of leadership IS the occupy platform.
Everyone’s opinions are taken into account because ‘just look what happens when we elect someone to talk for us’. It’s the problem… but when faced with the alternative… chaos essentially… it doesn’t seem too bad.
Just because it a problematic solution doesn’t make it the wrong one.
What’s this dickmitten’s platform?
He just wants any sanity abolished so he can rape and kill whomever he wants and take whatever he wants with little to no reprieve.
There needs to be a way to vote bitches down.
i will parrot this o.p., you don’t vote, therefore you will have no say in how things are run. only those that put a ballot out there, have a right to bitch. would you buy a car without a transmission, if so, then you are really fucking stupid. now apply that to a vote. no vote, no say, simple as that.
I’m no fan of the establishment but there will always be one. I’d rather pay taxes that go towards things like roads and public transit and healthcare than extortion to the mob.
You could always go live in the jungle somewhere, try that on for size.
Not voting brings about change because voting doesn’t. Sometimes institutions need to re-organize in order to be effective again. Read Carroll Quigley. When you’re more spiritual and less indoctrinated you can simply see truths on a bigger scale. You’re such a ram rod avast gangnam style, no need to be so aggressive. Nonetheless, your dedication to the current system I’m sure is greatly appreciated. Bringing down the figurehead is a symbol that the plan was a success. I wrote my ideas down on the comments page where they asked if you will vote or not. I await a single constructive thought from you AGS and I can hold my breath a long time.
Who wouldn’t want to live with a hot chick and their own pet monkey?
http://www.episodeguide.us/episodeimages/t…
Do they have direct flights to Brazil?
“Not voting brings about change because voting doesn’t.”
Well doesn’t that just sum it up perfectly. I’m glad you’re a spiritual person, mclean. Because you’ve clearly abandoned any pretense of intelligence. Now, go sacrifice some more of your higher brain functions to that giant turtle who carries the earth on the top of his shell.
i actually voted for mollock the first, from alpha centuri.
Hey mclean/OP!
If democracy is no different than fascism, then why do people in Vietnam get put in jail for 4-12 years for posting the kinds of things you post on here?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/2…
Don’t you think you’re shitting on the very system that allows you to publicly express such views? The very same one, by the way, that my grandfather risked and very nearly gave his life for? He was probably about your age.
I always like what old Winny had to say about it.
“Democracy is the worst political system in the word, except for all the rest.”
I gleefully anticipate your response.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-glxLYdUlbT4/Tpot…
I tend to think you’re getting democracy and capitalism intertwined too much. Democracy is the best system of government available, it’s certainly not perfect but people aren’t perfect. A problem I suspect you will run into with your system of government or lack of government.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is a means of control of the populace by controlling the products they use and the production of it for profit only, not for the benefit of society as a whole. If it’s a fundamental product like electricity or oil, we have experienced the pain. We, the populace, are affected by the whims of speculators who control the price of commodities by knee jerk reaction and those who answer only to shareholders and not the general public they serve.
I tend to favour a more social democratic government like you might find in Scandinavian countries but they have a cost as well. Mainly high taxation.
I throw those things out OP. You’re not providing specifics, just more rhetoric but please give your thoughts. I’m all ears… er eyes.
If you don’t like any of the candidates, I have 2 words for you: Tuxedo Stan!
If you want politicians to pander to your demographic, prove you’re worth pandering to and vote, even if it is for nothing.
Effin’ A Right, Diver Guy.
The thing about Tuxedo Stan is, he’s got great advisers
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d111/mor…
Only trouble is you can’t vote for him online. Stupid lousy e-democracy.
So… is Tuxedo Stan actually a cat? Someone told me that, and I had to correct them by saying that there was indeed a person behind the cat that was running. I mean, who would put a cat in the mayors office? But they assured me that the cat is the one running. I’ll need some clarity on this one folks
mclean, I like how you’ve got good intentions and a healthy spirituality. But if you want to make waves you’ll have to come up with something a little more concrete than trying to get everyone to see the ‘truth’. Also, you’ll have to stop playing in the puddles of anarchy and jump into the ocean of politics… bring a harpoon gun
http://webspace.webring.com/people/au/um_3…
“I mean, who would put a cat in the mayors office”
Well, if you can think of a better way to keep the rats in line, I’d like to hear it.
I have no problem with mclean’s refusal to vote. Like spoiling your ballot, or voting for a fringe party, it is is a perfectly reasonable PERSONAL option to express dissatisfaction with the candidates or a needlessly called election. I’ve done them all. But there is something gratingly puerile about a solution predicated on “If only everybody…” It is unprovable, since it can never occur for the hilariously ironic reason that we are not as ovine in nature as the mclean’s of the world assume. And in his tedious prating about “spirituality ” there is more than whiff of purple koolaid. Drink deeply my children.
From my understanding, Tuxedo Stan isn’t an actual official candidate on the ballot (what with him being a cat and all), but rather a write-in candidate.
@zZz: “a lack of leadership IS the occupy platform.”
I get that. I do. It’s disfunctional, has no focus, and will never amount to anything more than squatters with a cause. sorry, but it’s true.
The Movement needs leadership appointed by the people, for the people. This person will be the one to take Office and make these dreams come true.
You can’t conquer and enemy without first conquering it from within.
-play the game to;
-own the game to;
-change the game
They movement will simply go no where with the system we have. Gotta own the system first.
“WAKE UP TO THE TRUTHS THAT ARROUND (SIC) YOU.” (Don’t Vote)
Well, the first question which arises in connection with “Don’t Vote’s” call to arms is – wouldn’t you know it? – a philosophical one. What does DV mean by “truth?” The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives the relevant definition of “truth” as that possessing “the quality, state, of being true or accurate or honest or sincere.” But a distinction needs to be made immediately between those qualities which attach to the believer – being “honest” or “sincere” – and those qualities which attach to the object of belief – being true or accurate. In other words, it would be possible for a believer to be honest and sincere and yet be mistaken about the truth or accuracy of that in which he believed. He could be sincere and honest about a belief which was simply false. So where do we go from here?
The sense of DV’s multiple truths suggests he takes “truth” to attach to multiple objects of belief rather than to the believer himself so we’ll follow him along that path. What, in other words, are those “truths” which surround us? Which of those objects of belief are, in fact, true or accurate? DV appears to hold to a correspondence theory of truth, one which maintains that to ascribe “truth” to certain objects of belief is to claim that such truths have an independent, autonomous or objective standing regardless of what anyone – himself included one supposes – happen to believe about them. Those truths subsist “out there” in a realm which is not amenable to qualification or modification. I think we’re getting somewhere. What, then, are those truths?
Well, DV isn’t saying, at least not directly. He gives no substantive content to his conception of those many truths. But what does he say? Well, DV’s asserts that we should “Wake up to the truths that around (sic) you.” Right, we’ve got that. Now what do we wake up to when we wake up to the truths that surround us?
Well, when we wake up to the truths that surround us we do not, after all, wake up to multiple truths. We wake up to only one truth? What is that truth? That truth consists of DV’s claim that “This is our world and we are capable of making it into whatever we want.” That is the truth. Okay, I think that we’re getting somewhere. There are not multiple truths after all but only one, the truth that we are capable of making the world into whatever we want. Now, of course, the most obvious question arises: “What do we want?”
A good question. When we make our world into whatever we want does that mean we all want the same thing and if it is, what would it look like? DV doesn’t say. Can one disagree with DV – whatever that might mean since he has not given any substantive content to making the world into whatever he wants – or will DV impose his views on those whose truth does not conform to his? And who, exactly, are the “we” DV refers to, those who are capable of making the world into anything they want? And how, exactly, will those who are capable of making the world into anything they want go about doing so? Will they, as with DV, simply impose their will or will they be allowed to vote?
So it seems that, after all is said and done, what DV offers us a very simple alternative – democracy or dictatorship. One votes or one does not.
Have a nice day.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
hrmet, I’m not sure why you’re apologizing… I could care less about the stanky freeloaders.
and General… I know some people crazy enough to put a cat in the mayor’s office.
He’s been mayor longer than Mr. Kelly, in fact.
It is, of course, in the same state that has reared such brilliance as Mrs. Palin so it’s not as much of a shock.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-17…
That’s….. awesome?
Anyways, I know who I’ll be penciling in on my vote this year!
I know who I won’t be voting for.
His father fucked Helifex (I realize I spelled Halifax incorrectly)but,he was an alright guy.Not that it means anything,his dad taught(my then fiancee and I) Catholic pre-marriage classes.Which may have something to do with my being divorced now.
Hey… we’re lucky… we’re the survivors.
The other half of marriages end in death.
So first off, democracy doesn’t uphold your freedom of speech, the charter does and any organization of people can create one, abide by it and enforce it. And second, not voting is NOT going to destroy democracy because you can cast a ballot in which you vote for no one. I agree with TF, but it’s the capitalism that must be weeded out of government, especially at the municipal level which is the basis of this conversation. Perfection is an ideology that is strived for and never achieved, that’s a given. I suggest that problems can better be solved by the people who deal with them directly (ie. In my backyard) which is why re-organizing the system to reflect that can have a dramatic effect on the time it takes to create solutions and the effectiveness that the solution will ultimately have. When it comes to commodities and being at the mercy of those that control those products, yes we face an uphill battle. Only in the last decade has alternative sources of renewable energies become marketable to the general public, which is why re-organizing the current system to have a 100 neighbourhoods, communities, tribes, rather than 12 districts is the way to go. This is the essence of de-centralisation. It is perfectly possible for us as a city to organize ourselves like the country does in Parliament. No party lines though, just representatives of communities, neighbourhoods, tribes. All living together, all working together. Example… All the people who live on Porter’s Lake or Lake Banook or any other Lake could use geothermal heating and cooling techniques, not just the ones that can afford it, but every home, where the cost burden is shared as well as the benefit. If your concern is the amount of money it would cost, it doesn’t much matter because a renewable resource is on the timeline of forever and therefore can be ammortized as such therefore making it affordable. When it comes to the city’s solar house plan, I think they allowed 1500 homes to take part when 15,000 actually want to. Re-organize the system into communities, neighbourhoods, tribes and every one of them can have it. It would certainly require imagination and hard work on our part, and sure as shit not everything would go smoothly the first time or in the beginning, but just like everything else in the world, if we continue to work together and manage our micro goals while developping our macro goals, we could create a society of inter-dependance rather than one seperateness and individualism. PS that new building idea on Argyle is a scam and benefits not one single taxpaying resident in this city. Cheers to all.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6FyHG5mNpWI/UFBL…
That’s better, mclean. Now we’re getting the gist of your ideas.
I firmly believe in decentralizing government, establishing a more demographic system of voting and distributing/creating resources, and removing redundant levels or government/corporations.
Why do people still buy produce from grocery stores and not local farmers markets? They can easily get better quality veggies direct form the farmer. No mark up, and no company getting their hands in the cash flow. There’s no need for it, therefore its an inefficiency. Those resources (both material and people) could be better used elsewhere.
Also, and this may come as a bit of a surprise, but I want more taxes. Except with more taxes you’d also have to give more control of those taxes to the person paying them. This is just a part of what I have in mind, but imagine taking the lump sum of your taxes and dividing it into 10 equal parts. One part goes to the government, and you get to decide where the rest goes. You can invest it in predetermined sectors (Education, roads, health, military). I feel a well run system with something like this as a base would much more accurately reflect the will of the people. I personally would actually enjoy paying taxes this way.
Thanks for the lesson in philosophizing montrealman. Wow. Hope you’re not a teacher. That’s a lot of words to end up with a complete misunderstanding. I think I’m actually dumber after reading that. Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has a different POV. However, its TRUE that municipal governments are beauracratic nightmares. It’s TRUE that they were necessary when communicating with provincial and territorial governments was next to impossible due to lack of technology. That part isn’t TRUE anymore. I’m done giving people answers to questions they could easily get themselves with a little effort. The truth is, if you don’t ask the waitress if she has any fresh pies behind the counter you aint gettin any fresh pie. McLean out.
I like your ideas General. Especially with investing your tax dollars by percentage. Impressive. The farm freshness of our ice boxes is better here on the East coast than everywhere else in the country, but it’s true, it can always be better. It’s true that scandanavian countries have perfectly acceptable socialist constructs and that they pay higher taxes. One big difference is that they also have a much higher percentage of their populace who participate in forming local government ideologies and therefore get more of what they want. The extent of most North Americans contributions to governance is “the vote” and “the opinion”. (the popularity contest and the bitch). Which is how the people with poower prefer it. It must never be forgotten that they need us more than we need them. That montrealman is the ultimate truth.
The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that, mclean. It would be regional investments for the most part. I couldn’t spend my taxes in Ontario, although there would be federal sectors available for investment. Of course, there would need to be constructs in place to provide some organization to peoples spending. For example, it would be silly for someone to be able to invest ALL their taxes in one sector like education or military.
The government, with their 10% of the tax, would be responsible for taking care of all the sectors not covered by the populace. So if no one invested in the military, it would be the governments duty to pull up that end of the economy.
I think this would give people a more tangible feeling of control over their own country, and really inspire people to get involved in their community governments. Because I think you may be on to something with – “The extent of most North Americans contributions to governance is “the vote” and “the opinion”.” – Because that’s all they really do or care about. We need to get EVERYONE Actively (with a capital ‘A’) involved in the government. That’s how we create a government of the people, for the people.
he’s our keptin, mclovin, get yer own
Thanks, PG! At ease, soldier..
I’m pretty sure that’s kinda how it already works, tax-wise…
the only difference is the tax we already give to government is specifically TO prop up everything… and it ain’t ever gonna be 10%.
Your charitable contribution space is for whatever you want to give to.
You give more to charity, your taxes owed to Mr Gubment goes down.
That’s also how douchebags like Mr Romney pay a paltry 14% in taxes a year when he makes millions.
I mean, what if everyone put all their tax percentage money into the same 3 sectors?
Do you think the paltry 10% per person is going to make up enough windfall for all the remaining sectors? Under your plan, it could happen and it would all pretty much collapse.
Ok, you say, so make it mandatory for more than 5 sectors, or 6… as soon as you start to heighten the number, you’re effectively creeping closer and closer to mandating a budget which… is essentially what we have already.
You’re trying to to regress us decades… centuries.. and I would resist that.
I don’t think our taxes now work the way I’m envisioning they could. And I understand that my ideas probably seem pretty half cooked when I’m forced to compress them into a tiny text box. There’s a lot of the finer details I’m forced to leave out.
When I pay my taxes now, there’s no way that I can dictate that this money will be spent at my local hospital, or that the farmers who supply my food will be getting that tax money, etc… And you’re right, in a sense it would be similar to a budget. Except it would be more of a fill in the blanks, where each person gets to create a mini budget, based on their ideals and expectations.
And I know our taxes will never drop to 10%, that number was the part that would be contributed to g’vnt from your lump sum taxes. I’m thinking we’d be spending more like 25-50% tax on all our money. Which isn’t as bad as it sounds, because with proper organization and distribution the cost of goods & living goes significantly down. We’d more or less be subsidizing ourselves.
If people can control and monitor their money they’ll be more efficient at spending it. I equate it to an energy meter in a building that tells the occupants how much energy they use and for what specific activity. After seeing it, and watching your direct impact on a building, people naturally use less energy, and when they do they are more conscious about it. I fell tax money would work in the same way.
How exactly would it regress things? In my opinion that wouldn’t be much of a set back anyways, I don’t feel we’ve made much huge political progress lately, social progress certainly, but not much political. But that’s just me being cynical
And I realize I may be burned at the stake for the 25-50% tax comment. I patiently await your torches
RSVP
: mclean (10/17, 12:16PM)
“Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has a different POV.”
Well, Mclean, I’m sorry to hear that you’re actually dumber after reading my post but I don’t suppose you could tell us how much, could you? Is there some sort of measuring stick you are using? To say that you are “dumber,” of course, pre-supposes some prior conception as to what you mean by “dumb.” How would you define “dumb,” mclean? I realize of course that it is the opposite of “smart” but you can’t hide there since you would have to explain what that means as well. I’m looking forward to your explanation.
But anyway, I see you have grasped that my post was about truth, specifically your truth which reduced to the claim that we should wake up to the truths that surround us. That suggests that there are multiple truths lying outside the believer, circulating perhaps like little stars which float about around him. That would amount to an objectivist theory of truth, that truth is truth no matter what we might think.
But now we find that this is not so. We find that everyone has their own truth because everyone has their ow “POV”, whatever that might mean (which really doesn’t matter but if you want to defend your notion of truth based on “POV” then please do so. I’ll be waiting). In effect, you have switched from a correspondence theory of truth to a coherence theory of truth. In other words, something is true for me if it coheres with my conceptual framework and false if it doesn’t. In other words, something is true only if it is true for me.
But there are difficulties attached to that view mclean, primarily that of relativism. Look at your definition of truth: “Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has a different POV.” You must realize mclean, that if you are a consistent relativist, then you cannot say that. Do you know why? Do you see the word “everyone?” You are making a universal assertion mclean, one which your relativist principles preclude you from making. All you can consistently say is that the assertion, “Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has a different POV,” is ONLY TRUE FOR ME. Now if I reject your assertion then according to your own relativist principles you must accept my rejection to the effect that what is true for you is not true for me. In effect mclean, your view amounts to the denial of any truth including, of course, your own claim to know the truth.
You will probably have to read that over a few times mclean. Otherwise you will actually feel dumber than you actually are, which is saying something.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
PHILOSOPHY 101
“Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has their own POV.” (mclean 10/17, 12:16PM)
Sorry to see that you didn’t make it back to the debating table this morning, mclean. Nothing serious I hope. It finally occurred to me what you meant by “POV.” It means “point of view” – I had to laugh – which doesn’t demolish my previous post about your relativism but, on the contrary, strengthens it. So I think the best way to proceed this morning is to give you a little lesson in philosophy. Call it “Philosophy 101.” This morning’s lesson in Philosophy 101 concerns “Empty Tautologies.”
Look at the following sentence, mclean. “A bachelor is an unmarried man.” That is a true statement mclean, because that is what a bachelor is. He is an unmarried man. You can even turn the sentence around and say “An unmarried man is a bachelor.” However, the difficulty mclean, is that the definition of a bachelor is simply verbal. To say that a bachelor is an unmarried man is true only in the verbal sense that being unmarried is what it MEANS to a bachelor. That, in philosophy mclean, is what is called a “tautology.” It has no conceptual content, consisting as it does as only of a re-description of the word “bachelor.” The important part mclean, is that since tautologies are only verbal they contain no content. They are conceptually “empty.” Nothing follows from them. You do understand that, don’t you mclean?
Now mclean, look at your assertion above. To expand it to its proper form, it reads “Everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has their own point of view.” Are you beginning to see the tautology, mclean? The second half of the sentence, “because everyone has their own point of view” is simply a verbal re-description of the first half, “Everyone’s truth is their own.” In other words mclean, the statement “everyone has their own point of view” is what the statement “Everyone’s truth is their own” MEANS. You can turn it around and say that “because everyone has their own point of view” then, by logical necessity, “Everyone’s truth is their own.” In other words, mclean, your foundational assertion is little more than an empty tautology from which nothing follows. You do understand that, don’t you mclean?
In my previous post I demonstrated that your foundational assertion was self-contradictory. In other words if you really subscribed to your claim that everyone’s truth is their own because everyone has their own point of view then, by definition, I could simply reject your claim and, this is the important part mclean, you must accept my rejection since, as you put it, everyone has their own point of view, including mine which rejects yours. You do understand that, don’t you mclean?
In sum, your foundational claim is both an empty tautology and is self-contradictory. On the basis of Philosophy 101, it must therefore be rejected. You do understand that, don’t you mclean?
Have a nice day.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!