You're viewing a single thread.
And chances are he’ll win again, because the other dude is an 80 year old man who has been continually ineffectual and who believes that America is great, despite the largest increase in poverty in American history happening under his nose. Who believes he’s the most pro union president ever, while gutting a rail strike and giving the workers less than 1/4 of what they asked for.
Maybe, it’s time to admit that our entire political system is non-functional, and needs to be remade in a way to ensure actual democracy, which our system is by definition not.
despite the largest increase in poverty in American history happening under his nose
-
It isn't.
-
That's mostly due to China and COVID, and a certain other President who insisted COVID would "disappear like magic" and put forth a solution to shine UV light inside your body.
-
Maybe, it’s time to admit that our entire political system is non-functional, and needs to be remade in a way to ensure actual democracy, which our system is by definition not.
I think you are under the impression that the United States system of governance was meant to be a direct democracy. This is not accurate. It is, and always has been, a federal single executive constitutional republic. For better or worse, this is not a mistake of its founding.
The change you are asking for is a virtual impossibility.
I think you are under the impression that the United States system of governance was meant to be a direct democracy.
No, they're just bemoaning that the current democracy is bourgeois and has always been for the capitalist class, a remote minority among the people.
It is, and always has been, a federal single executive constitutional republic. For better or worse, this is not a mistake of its founding.
"It is what it is", you say. "It ought not to be," is what was said. You didn't answer, you just stated the issue.
The change you are asking for is a virtual impossibility.
So, along with "it is what it is", you're also adding on, "ain't nuthin' we can do 'bout it".
Any more sage wisdom to add on to empty platitudes? How about a source for true proletarian democracy being impossible?
How about a source for true proletarian democracy being impossible?
It's not about direct democracy being possible or not in a general sense. It absolutely is. The question of feasibility arises though when we begin to think about HOW we actually convert the US, specifically, from it's current form into a direct democracy. It's easy to say "well you do this, you change that, etc... and you're golden" when it's just theory, but in practice... good fucking luck.
There's a vast difference between "virtually impossible" and "a whole fucking lot of effort and organising".
"It is what it is", you say. "It ought not to be," is what was said. You didn't answer, you just stated the issue.
When "It ought not to be," goes against first principles the issue must be stated. It would take a civil war and a revolution to change, at minimum.
So, along with "it is what it is", you're also adding on, "ain't nuthin' we can do 'bout it".
Who is bringing war against the United States to make this change? It will never be constitutional, relegating it extraconstitutional. Okay.
Your movement becomes a zero-authority completely dependent on authoritarianism to sustain, winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Nice.
Any more sage wisdom to add on to empty platitudes?
Found your own country with blackjack and hookers. Easy-peasy.
How about a source for true proletarian democracy being impossible?
I never said true proletarian democracy is an impossibility, since a negative cannot be proven. I'm simply suggesting that the United States is not, and never has been the place for one, by institution.
If so, quit trying to convince me and do it.
It would take a civil war and a revolution to change, at minimum.
No shit lmao. Tell someone who doesn't know.
It will never be constitutional, relegating it extraconstitutional. Okay.
What a shocker. This would be against the wishes of the state?? Wow, I didn't realise governments don't allow themselves to be overthrown.
Your movement becomes a zero-authority completely dependent on authoritarianism to sustain, winning over the hearts and minds of the people. Nice.
Is it authoritarian, or a grassroots movement? Make up your mind. Or are you saying that a movement that actually wins hearts and minds is somehow authoritatian?
I never said true proletarian democracy is an impossibility, since a negative cannot be proven. I'm simply suggesting that the United States is not, and never has been the place for one, by institution
Don't confuse a state with its territory. There is nothing about the dirt and stone those roads are paved over that negates the possibility. There is no "place" it is for. The state would fight it, that's what you're saying.
And, once again - SHOCKER!
This is bringing back memories of the Libertarian Free State Project that has been ongoing for a little over twenty-two years now.
The project's ultimate goal is to take over the local and state governments of New Hampshire and secede from the United States to become their own sovereign country. They may have quieted that rhetoric in recent years, but it is and has always been their plan.
The Libertarians run and operate on a platform of non-aggression, opting to adhere by the authority of the state—of which I assure they see as every bit of an oxymoron as you do—to enact their political means. The grim reality is that once the project attempts secession, it will almost certainly be met with a swift end.
This is a real problem that has been discussed at length by the Libertarian community, and they have opted for the non-aggression principle as their best chance for success in practice. If a peaceful, by the book compliant state cannot achieve "Liberty in Your Lifetime!" playing by the rules without being mowed down, what hope does an aggressive movement have?
If a peaceful, by the book compliant state cannot achieve "Liberty in Your Lifetime!" playing by the rules without being mowed down, what hope does an aggressive movement have?
How can you be so naive?
How can you be so naive?
This is their strategy, not mine.
Their concluding factor is that governments are monopolies of violence. Like I said, this is a practical movement by people willing to put their asses on the line, not simple armchair theory.
I am simply asking because you clearly find the alternative superior.
Why exactly do you think that...?
Planes were s virtual impossibility for a long time too, and then they weren’t. Your comment is very “End of History”. Just because something was once true, does not mean that it is inevitably so forever. Nor does the founders intention of guarding against economic democracy mean that such is impossible to strive for.