What five changes to the government would you make?

[Kaltovar]

Do you have any actual criticisms to offer or are you just going to insult me?

Gun control is shit and ineffective.
Voting is shit and tyranny. There's no way to fix this.
There's heaps of great uses for coal besides burning.
Just banning things is ineffective and shit.
Regulations are shit and innefective.
Government is tyranny, innefective and shit.

Your ideas are retarded from the get go. If you want to conjure this has something to do with you yourself, well that's not my bad.

A lack of government inevitably leads to that power vacuum being filled by something you will MOST CERTAINLY not agree with if you think voting is shit and tyranny.

You can talk about hypothetical systems where people would "band together for a system where nobody can do that", but ultimately a bunch of people all doing their own thing can't stand up to professional armies. We've seen them get crushed in Italy, Yugoslavia, Pre-Soviet Russia, South America (sooo many times), Asia, France, Spain ... Honestly I'm not aware of a single time it's worked with the exception of Transnistria, and only because Russia has guaranteed their independence and ... Hell, they have a form of government now and it's pretty much Communist.

[Samadhi]

Gun control is shit and ineffective.
Voting is shit and tyranny. There's no way to fix this.
There's heaps of great uses for coal besides burning.
Just banning things is ineffective and shit.
Regulations are shit and innefective.
Government is tyranny, innefective and shit.

Your ideas are retarded from the get go. If you want to conjure this has something to do with you yourself, well that's not my bad.

A lack of government inevitably leads to that power vacuum being filled by something you will MOST CERTAINLY not agree with if you think voting is shit and tyranny.

You can talk about hypothetical systems where people would "band together for a system where nobody can do that", but ultimately a bunch of people all doing their own thing can't stand up to professional armies. We've seen them get crushed in Italy, Yugoslavia, Pre-Soviet Russia, South America (sooo many times), Asia, France, Spain ... Honestly I'm not aware of a single time it's worked with the exception of Transnistria, and only because Russia has guaranteed their independence and ... Hell, they have a form of government now and it's pretty much Communist.

What bullshit are you on about this time?

[Kaltovar]

A lack of government inevitably leads to that power vacuum being filled by something you will MOST CERTAINLY not agree with if you think voting is shit and tyranny.

You can talk about hypothetical systems where people would "band together for a system where nobody can do that", but ultimately a bunch of people all doing their own thing can't stand up to professional armies. We've seen them get crushed in Italy, Yugoslavia, Pre-Soviet Russia, South America (sooo many times), Asia, France, Spain ... Honestly I'm not aware of a single time it's worked with the exception of Transnistria, and only because Russia has guaranteed their independence and ... Hell, they have a form of government now and it's pretty much Communist.

What bullshit are you on about this time?

Nothing. Go back to sleep knowing you are right.

[US-SSR]

1. Expand the Supreme Court to as many justices as needed.
2. Abolish the Electoral College, institute direct election of the President.
3. Reverse Citizens United, public funding of all elections, national, state, county, local.
4. Reverse Selby County, full and effective enforcement of voting rights.
5. Support organized labor: fully staff and fund the National Labor Relations Board, mandate union representation for all workers and union representation on all corporate boards, no corporate acquisitions or bankruptcies without first giving workers the option to purchase and run the company with government financial and technical assistance.

(Image)

I agree with all of these except 4, and only because I am not familiar with what the Selby County ruling was. I'm going to go ahead and say there's a 90% chance I'd agree with it if I knew what it was though, based on your description. Would you care to explain, comrade?

The Roberts Court, the most activist supreme court in living memory, used the pretext of a suit brought by Shelby County, Tennessee (not Selby County, I stand corrected) challenging the preclearance procedures of the Voting Rights Act under which certain jurisdictions may not make changes to laws, rules or procedures governing elections without the approval of the US Justice Department to reverse the decisions of the circuit and appeals court, declare that there was no more racism in voting in the US and strike down preclearance throughout the country. Since then hundreds of jurisdictions have closed registration offices and polling places in minority communities, cut opportunities for early voting and instituted other voting restrictions aimed at minorities, young people and groups more likely to vote for Democrats. More here.

[Kaltovar]

I agree with all of these except 4, and only because I am not familiar with what the Selby County ruling was. I'm going to go ahead and say there's a 90% chance I'd agree with it if I knew what it was though, based on your description. Would you care to explain, comrade?

" declare that there was no more racism in voting in the US and strike down preclearance throughout the country."

Er, I'm one who normally argues that there's dramatically less racism than there used to be and people are often being dramatic (this as a mixed race person) ... But to argue that there's NO MORE RACISM strikes me as absurd. Especially since a big part of what has made things so much better is institutional protections like laws that say "Closing polling places in minority communities is very illegal".

I can't believe this is an actual court ruling that's still in effect. Of course it should be overturned.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

A lack of government inevitably leads to that power vacuum being filled by something you will MOST CERTAINLY not agree with if you think voting is shit and tyranny.

You can talk about hypothetical systems where people would "band together for a system where nobody can do that", but ultimately a bunch of people all doing their own thing can't stand up to professional armies. We've seen them get crushed in Italy, Yugoslavia, Pre-Soviet Russia, South America (sooo many times), Asia, France, Spain ... Honestly I'm not aware of a single time it's worked with the exception of Transnistria, and only because Russia has guaranteed their independence and ... Hell, they have a form of government now and it's pretty much Communist.

What bullshit are you on about this time?

He's explaining why anti-Statism is paste-eating fantasy nonsense that doesn't work in reality.

In a perfect world he wouldn't have to explain it, but then again in a perfect world Anarchism could actually work.

[Samadhi]

What bullshit are you on about this time?

He's explaining why anti-Statism is paste-eating fantasy nonsense that doesn't work in reality.

In a perfect world he wouldn't have to explain it, but then again in a perfect world Anarchism could actually work.

Yeah, sure. Because anything he said relates to anarchism. At all.

[Kaltovar]

He's explaining why anti-Statism is paste-eating fantasy nonsense that doesn't work in reality.

In a perfect world he wouldn't have to explain it, but then again in a perfect world Anarchism could actually work.

Yeah, sure. Because anything he said relates to anarchism. At all.

What? I literally fail to comprehend how you think what I said does not relate to anarchism. Do you understand what your own ideology is? I'm starting to think you're leading me on. I'm not even being sarcastic, I actually think you might be a troll.

[Samadhi]

Yeah, sure. Because anything he said relates to anarchism. At all.

What? I literally fail to comprehend how you think what I said does not relate to anarchism. Do you understand what your own ideology is? I'm starting to think you're leading me on. I'm not even being sarcastic, I actually think you might be a troll.

I'm pretty sure you don't.

[Kaltovar]

What bullshit are you on about this time?

He's explaining why anti-Statism is paste-eating fantasy nonsense that doesn't work in reality.

In a perfect world he wouldn't have to explain it, but then again in a perfect world Anarchism could actually work.

I keep seeing you in threads and liking what you say, so I've added you to my dossier.

[Kaltovar]

What? I literally fail to comprehend how you think what I said does not relate to anarchism. Do you understand what your own ideology is? I'm starting to think you're leading me on. I'm not even being sarcastic, I actually think you might be a troll.

I'm pretty sure you don't.

Obviously I don't understand what your brand of Anarchism is. Would you care to explain how it could protect itself from invasion by an outside power?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yeah, sure. Because anything he said relates to anarchism. At all.

What? I literally fail to comprehend how you think what I said does not relate to anarchism. Do you understand what your own ideology is? I'm starting to think you're leading me on. I'm not even being sarcastic, I actually think you might be a troll.

She strikes me as a "College Commie", if you will. Someone who hears an idea they like the sound of but doesn't really understand it.

I'm pretty sure you don't.

Obviously, I don't understand what your brand of Anarchism is. Would you care to explain how it could protect itself from invasion by an outside power?

She can't even explain how roads will be built, funded, and maintained without taxes. Don't waste your time expecting an answer.

He's explaining why anti-Statism is paste-eating fantasy nonsense that doesn't work in reality.

In a perfect world he wouldn't have to explain it, but then again in a perfect world Anarchism could actually work.

I keep seeing you in threads and liking what you say, so I've added you to my dossier.

Be sure to get my good side.

[US-SSR]

" declare that there was no more racism in voting in the US and strike down preclearance throughout the country."

Er, I'm one who normally argues that there's dramatically less racism than there used to be and people are often being dramatic (this as a mixed race person) ... But to argue that there's NO MORE RACISM strikes me as absurd. Especially since a big part of what has made things so much better is institutional protections like laws that say "Closing polling places in minority communities is very illegal".

I can't believe this is an actual court ruling that's still in effect. Of course it should be overturned.

Believe it.

In defending the coverage formula, the Government, the intervenors, and the dissent also rely heavily on data from the record that they claim justify disparate coverage. Congress compiled thousands of pages of evidence before reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act. The court below and the parties have debated what that record shows—they have gone back and forth about whether to compare covered to noncovered jurisdictions as blocks, how to disaggregate the data State by State, how to weigh §2 cases as evidence of ongoing discrimination, and whether to consider evidence not before Congress, among other issues...Regardless of how to look at the record, however, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the “pervasive,” “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “rampant” discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation at that time.

[Cisairse]

Who needs roads, we have Uber Copter now.

[Samadhi]

I'm pretty sure you don't.

Obviously I don't understand what your brand of Anarchism is. Would you care to explain how it could protect itself from invasion by an outside power?

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

[Cisairse]

Obviously I don't understand what your brand of Anarchism is. Would you care to explain how it could protect itself from invasion by an outside power?

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

Having an effective defensive force pretty much makes you a state.

[Samadhi]

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

Having an effective defensive force pretty much makes you a state.

That's going to be fun for you to prove.

[Kaltovar]

She strikes me as a "College Commie", if you will. Someone who hears an idea they like the sound of but doesn't really understand it.

It's funny you should say that, because I thought of a term that was told to me by a more serious leftist (communist). They called this brand of person a "Twitter Revolutionary" who incessantly denounces others for being fools and lacking ideological purity while literally understanding nothing of their own ideology and doing nothing for their own movement. They spend all their time either calling their perceived enemies idiots or attacking their own allies for not being perfect enough, and rarely if ever show up to real life protests or participate in any kind of actual organizing to see their ideas carried out.

She can't even explain how roads will be built, funded, and maintained without taxes. Don't waste your time expecting an answer. [/quote]

I don't really expect one. I expect to get insulted and told how little of the world I understand by a galaxy brain "18 year old cat mom" who has achieved levels of understanding beyond mortal comprehension. I am still willing to give this person a chance ... It is technically possible that I missed something.

[US-SSR]

Who needs roads, we have Uber Copter now.

[Antityranicals]

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

Having an effective defensive force pretty much makes you a state.

Being a state is a little more than that. One must not just have an effective defense force, but be an enforceable monopoly on defense.

[Cisairse]

Having an effective defensive force pretty much makes you a state.

That's going to be fun for you to prove.

Ever heard of the phrase "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force?" If you have a defense force that actively defends with force against other (offensive) forces, you're a state.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Obviously I don't understand what your brand of Anarchism is. Would you care to explain how it could protect itself from invasion by an outside power?

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

Ah yes, the mythical world where the entire world rebels against their governments because... reasons.

You realize all that's doing is inviting the inevitable rise of violent, tyrannical gangs that use terrorism to keep people in line yes? Or do you really believe just handing everybody a gun will keep that from happening?

[Antityranicals]

That's going to be fun for you to prove.

Ever heard of the phrase "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force?" If you have a defense force that actively defends with force against other (offensive) forces, you're a state.

That's not a monopoly, mate. If I sell burgers, that doesn't mean I have a monopoly on burger selling...

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

She strikes me as a "College Commie", if you will. Someone who hears an idea they like the sound of but doesn't really understand it.

It's funny you should say that, because I thought of a term that was told to me by a more serious leftist (communist). They called this brand of person a "Twitter Revolutionary" who incessantly denounces others for being fools and lacking ideological purity while literally understanding nothing of their own ideology and doing nothing for their own movement. They spend all their time either calling their perceived enemies idiots or attacking their own allies for not being perfect enough, and rarely if ever show up to real life protests or participate in any kind of actual organizing to see their ideas carried out.

She can't even explain how roads will be built, funded, and maintained without taxes. Don't waste your time expecting an answer.

I don't really expect one. I expect to get insulted and told how little of the world I understand by a galaxy brain "18 year old cat mom" who has achieved levels of understanding beyond mortal comprehension. I am still willing to give this person a chance ... It is technically possible that I missed something.

I like my term better. It's catchy.

[Samadhi]

Besides the fact that foreign powers would constantly be under attack by their own civilians, free roaming civilians and organised anti state forces?

You don't need a state or government to have an effective defensive force.

Ah yes, the mythical world where the entire world rebels against their governments because... reasons.

You realize all that's doing is inviting the inevitable rise of violent, tyrannical gangs that use terrorism to keep people in line yes? Or do you really believe just handing everybody a gun will keep that from happening?

That boogey man scenario is what we have now.
There's a reason the police are called blue Isis.
That's what you're defending.