Is here anybody else involved in #UniteBlue (uniting the left on Twitter)?
I strongly feel like there should be a politically liberal/progressive group in Berlin. There're also lots of LGBT persons united within #UniteBlue. I'm principally not against the Dems, but shouldn't there something be to their left as well?
In case there are #UniteBlue tweeters in Berlin, they might have meetings and start cooperating....
@Roof: Now your "do you see a flow" -talk sounds very 'alien' to me. It doesn't make sense to me, because I don't see that much negative in the system state/government as you do. To me it is the voter, NOT THE SYSTEM. But even though the voters don't act as they should (be more informed and critical), the system works better than no government at all! THAT'S THE FLOW I SEE -- as Obamacare is not the best healthcare, but it's better than nothing at all and we couldn't get more out of Congress. Yes, Congress is a drag at times, but I love Congress, because it's the heart of Democracy. Life will never be perfect, Roof! Please talk it over with your anarchy-pastor.
You're wasting you're time. I talked about evolution as well, but I'm sure there're more typos.
Your Economic Calculation Problem is VERY CUTE. Now tell me how to explain it to the rednecks. And by the way to the yellow-dogs, who are nice liberals, but many of them not used to that kinda language.
Either you live under a rock or somewhere over the clouds. I guess it must be in the clouds. People are complaining about politics being too complicated and you come across with THAT stuff.
Frankly, if you cannot explain it to a majority it is just worth reading, but can't be done in reality. And these thoughts have NOT been written for a majority.
You're too pessimistic, humanity has involved. How they thought about women rights in the past. One of my favorite authors of the late 1600s is excitingly progressive, writing not unlike a male feminist, but that was a very rare case. On another page he shows where he'd politically backwards in our times : saying servants shouldn't be educated and they shouldn't read newspapers. His name was Caspar Stieler -- very progressive and liberal at his time, but not in our time. Because humanity involves.
So if you think government doesn't serve their citizens at all and this is true, we should actually NOT have any kind of government. Then we should prefer Roof's stateless anarchy, if it's really all that bad as you say. Do you have the guts to actually stand for that? You can't just talk something in public without feeling responsible. You are responsible for your country, as all your fellow citizens, and that's the way you should talk. So if you feel like government was nothing but wrong and we should do away with it, you should feel responsible for that. But frankly this would mean dumping the baby with the bathwater. You want Walmart and Koch bros. to rule us? They would rule us... Just do away with government and you'll see how fast the dark side of society will take the power...
And by the way, Mitt Romney talks like his 13.9% tax rate would be to high still. You wanna get yourself that kind of a president?
Bakunin is dated -- it's just history, like Marx. We're not going to solve the problems of the 21st century wit ideas of the 19the century. I work a lot with historical sources, even middle-age sources. But using them to change the present is just another kind of weird fundamentalism.
I do not object sources like Marx or Bakunin. They were very intelligent authors and are still worth reading. I also enjoy to read Gottfried Leipnitz. But I am able to see the difference between history and present politics.
By the way, MultiQuote is a little difficult indeed:
First you click MultiQuote at the foot of the comment you wanna quote. Then you scroll all the way down to the foot of the page and click Add reply. So then you get a comment field with your quotation already prepared, including the name of whom you're gonna quote.
It's fairly easy, but I needed time to see it through myself. :)
Okay, you show me a way to make stateless society safe and I will be convinced. By the way, I'm a liberal and never a creationist! Comparing the Democratic Party and president Obama to the today downright fascist GOP is weird! But indeed one of my greatest problems, that I ponder a lot, are blue-dog candidates: The average voter is too uninformed -- they should actually know who they're going to vote for!! And here's a weak point in our Democracy : most people don't care enough. Basically (as a liberal!) I'd love to be like, "let's make our Democracy MORE democratic... maybe even socialist..." But this doesn't work, because people don't CARE enough. And THIS is exactly the problem YOU will have in your stateless society as well. Humanity is not mature yet, as I feel. During the middle-ages we weren't mature enough for kingless Democracy. Right now we're neither able to live socialism or stateless anarchy.
I assure you, I'm NOT speaking in any conservative way. I am a liberal and would LOVE to see a way to the better. For November I see no alternative to president Obama and hope for as many progressive Democratic Congresspeople as possible. But if this won't work out : just blame it on the voter. The problem is not the system -- the present system is not that bad -- it's the voter. And there's another problem: If there is no responsible businessperson, enterprises never worked. People steal and cheat a lot then and the leaders don't care enough, because it's not THEIR money. As long as humans are that careless, socialism won't work. Very, very sorry about that, but it doesn't. On the other hand an unregulated free market would lead to chaos as well. Because humans don't care and many employers DON'T. So there you are : this is why I'm a liberal Keynesian. As teachers are considered kinda public enemies in the U.S. I'm afraid American intelligence might develop backwards.... so this would make socialism and stateless anarchy even more unlikely...
@punkinside: People who are rude like you sound moronic themselves.
I said before ANARCHIA historically always meant without king/ruler in several comments. So the result is "disorder". You read the same meaning in your Wikipedia link: ""absence of a leader."
I'd like to add a 1535 Latin dictionary that I use very often online:
"On ein oberen/ oder on ein haupt"
An unregulated economy is an anarchic structure as well. In society we need the protection of laws. No government/rule/king or whatever always meant and still means LAWLESS CHAOS. Again : libertarian ideas are anarchic.
By the way, before I was 20 I had already learned, the idea "from today on I start a new life" can't work. If we wanna change, we have to evolve in small steps. Now, if we cannot do that in our private lives, how much more difficult are changes in societies?! Yes, I am for changes -- but it takes a lot of time and patience. As you have to compromise in politics a lot.
It's mind-boggling, but that is LAW in the United States. And why is it law? Because too many Americans voted GOP over the last decades. The result is a Republican Supreme Court. And this court is pro-Banksters, pro-corporate-greed and simply works for the new American aristocracy : people like Mitt Romney, Koch bros. and Donald Trump.
I actually met people on blogs that began their comments with, "I'm a liberal and came to the conclusion, Ron Paul is the solution." So these people would actually vote in another GOP candidate, if Paul ran! There are students who don't know what a LIBERAL is.
So, there goes our future if there's so much stupidity. Actually a reason to laugh for Koch bros. & co. -- for they profit if people don't get anything. They want us to be dumb and believe corporations are people.
And that is why banksters and corporations have so much power. The American voter empowered them.
Anarchia is an antique vocabulary that is thousands of years old. It means nothing but disorder. Libertarian ideas or nothing but anarchic chaos. Moreover the present GOP is so very much coined by these anti-gov anarchic ideas, they would lead us into chaos and misery. They would actually destroy the United States.
There is no security without federate institutions. If these institutions do terrible things at time, this happens because the average citizen is just as terrible as these institutions. Terrible voters vote in terrible institutions. The average American is NOT an innocent saint! So, how would they create/vote-in structures/institutions that never fail?
Nevertheless, life without these (at times terrible) institutions would be worse. You can't just do away with structures that grew over decades and centuries and then create a new order out of nothing. No, even monarchy was more humane than medieval anarchy. The worst that could happen in middle-age was no king.
Today's ideological ideas about anarchy are just weird. I don't take them seriously. Very small minority of weird chaotic minds. That's what I meant with 'true anarchists' -- I shouldn't have forgotten that ' ... and possibly add an ironic emoticon.
You admit there WILL be crime. That's good. Because some of my classmates in school insisted on there won't be -- and how can you discuss reasonable points if they have such fantastic imaginations...
Okay, I assume you feel like, communities are enough. You consider federal and state institutions unnecessary?
Why, you need to defend the common good with state police as well, because criminals are creative people -- more creative than you think! Criminal organizations tend to organize in ARMY-size as well! And a council and even a county can be defeated then by gangster organizations.
You also need to organize defense at federal level, because big criminal organizations build structures that are stronger than a state. This criminals even organize at international level -- the federal police must do that too and cooperate with the police in other nations. That's why you need federal police. You also need the U.S. Army, because there are countries ruled by criminal despots who would attack us if we had not our U.S. Forces. As I said before, also pirates tend to head to coasts that lack of defense.
There you see, Ron Paul's ideas are idiocy. We would end up in hell -- controlled and ruled by gangsters.
Germans understand, if you have Democracy you have to defend it. Democracy doesn't stay automatically, you can loose it. And if you reason as you do -- actually NOT reason at all, you loose Democracy sooner than you think...
Actually my friend, true anarchists dream of stone age. They think it was a peaceful society. Frankly, in stone age they were not, they even were cannibals. And those cannibals were tortured by lice, flees and bed bugs. All those little critters which join us if there is anarchy -- lack of order...