I'm beginning to think this guy is just trolling. Just way too stereotypical... Okay bro, keep thinking you're more "awake" than I am, whatever that means.
Soon as I saw that post, it just screamed 'troll'. It's too fucking funny when people talk about how "awake" they are
Well I mean some people are sincerely like that, believing that they're the only one who has thought about these things. But that whole "you won't get me back in the Matrix!" is just too much i think
Fair dos man. I've got no issue if you're undecided whether to vote 3rd party or vote at all. I just think saying "voting means you have no right to complain" is complete bullshit. If nobody represents my views, I won't vote ; if they do represent my views, I'll vote for them (regardless of if they'll get in power or not). Fuck this 'lesser of two evils' shit. Edit correcting autocorrect
I suppose, but I still will never give legitimacy to this immoral system in place. I would never use a 3rd party to impose my will upon others via law or support the violation of the peoples sovereignty.
I think there are good arguments for third party and for not voting. If i felt the third party would address the systemic problems i would probably vote.
True, but even starting with auditing the Fed (with the end goal of ending the Fed), or justice system reform. We are in a horrible situation though. Economically, many people rely on government, so just switching off the services it provides would be catastrophic (even though in principle i oppose government welfare and subsidies). So we need solutions to phase those out and revitalize the economy so that becomes a feasible goal. Then we got this Obamacarelessness to deal with. We need to get rid of that ASAP before that becomes another entrenched problem.
I'm not sure real positive change will come without much destruction and death. That's the scariest part of it all. The feds will go down kicking and screaming.
What right do YOU have to complain about anything when you didn't voice your opinion? But you're under the illusion that your vote doesn't matter. Oh well, that just makes my vote matter more. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
It is called a vote of no confidence "A motion of no confidence (alternativelyvote of no confidence, censure motion,no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a statement or vote that a person or persons in a position of responsibility (government, managerial, etc.) is no longer deemed fit to hold that position: perhaps because they are inadequate in some respect, are failing to carry out obligations, or are making decisions that other members feel are detrimental." -Wikipedia
Well, that's quite a "grown up" and totally illogical way of thinking. If you can look past your obvious "most" important issue here....pot legalization, and get to some issues that matter. The most important reason why Hillary Clinton cannot go into the presidency of the US is her liberal ass ideology and the FACT that she will put another liberal on the supreme court. Know what that means? That means that Pickles the fainting clown will be able to load the court to get the rulings to suit her and not someone who will abide by the constitution and protect the very rights we were given when the nation was founded. If you enjoy free speech, the right to carry a weapon for your own protection, freedom to worship as you please and other basic rights we are given as a citizen in this country, you might want to think a little deeper than the legalization of "pot" and think about what kind of an America we will have when the ultra liberal dems continue the same old crap Obama has done for 8 years and then add her corruption and hatred and anger into the pool. After 4 years of yet another Clinton White House, you won't even recognize America as you've always known it. If you vote third party, all you're doing is risking Hillary taking office. Use your brain, if you have one, and go a little deeper than your buzz as far as incredibly important political issues. You better HOPE LIKE HELL you don't get a president in office who chooses to legalize it federally because once the good old government gets through regulating it to death and making sure they set the system up so their rich crony friends can make all the money, you'll find it even more difficult to grow your own than it is now. Come on people. Age is no excuse here. And if you get your news from the mainstream media, you have been lied to just like with Hillary. I've never seen the media go after someone like they have Trump during this election cycle. It's because they (incumbents, establishment candidates, lobbyists, and about a million other unnecessary people in government) are beginning to realize that their "tax payer funded" party might just be about to end. When you've sold yourself out to the highest bidder, as with 99% of all our elected officials, you're of no use to the American people anymore. Term limits should have been implemented decades ago and lobbying should be punishable by death. It's time to get real about where you get your information and use some damn common sense instead of letting what someone else says influence what you do. If you sit at home and don't vote and Hillary becomes POTUS? YOU DESERVE THE UTTER HELL THAT AMERICA WILL BECOME!! TWW
So it's always immoral to use violence or the threat of violence to influence another person's actions? If a guy breaks into my car, is it immoral for me to say I'll kick his ass if it happens again? Is violence always wrong? I don't believe so, the world is too complex for simple edicts like "Don't use violence".
Don't misconstruct my words. If he breaks into your car he has already accepted the possibility of harm coming to him. So that would not be immoral on your part. That's just a logical response. But if you tell every person on the street that you'll hurt them if they do such and such, then yea, your using their fear as a means to your own end, which would be private ownership in this scenario. That's just unnecessarily aggressive. It's not immoral because you aren't necessarily violating their rights. Now if you tell people that they can't drive without car insurance and registration and a liscence or harm will befall them, then that is infringing on the personal sovereignty of those people and that's Immoral. It really is quite simple. I'd recommend you read Kants groundwork of the Metaphysic of morals. You can apply his principles to any realm of philosophy.
Okay so we've established that it's not always immoral to use violence or threats to control people. So then the question is when is it okay and when is it not? So using your example of driving, you believe that enforcing any conditions on vehicle ownership or use is a violation of their rights? Even if the way they drive could harm others? We can't impose rules like "Don't drive while intoxicated", or "don't drive without insurance"? If someone gets drunk, hops in their uninsured vehicle and crashes into me, totals my car and puts me in the hospital, society has no right to sanction them? I'm pretty libertarian in my views, but I don't think that's what personal freedom is. You argued that me beating up a personal that breaks into my car is okay, because that person's own decisions means that they must accept the consequences. So why doesn't that same logic apply to the act of driving? Reading a little about Kant, it appears that he did believe in the idea of a social contract, which is basically what we're talking about here. People voluntarily surrendering personal freedom to do certain things, in exchange for protection of remaining rights. So in this case, I surrender my right to drive without insurance/license, and in return I'm protected from the harm that bad/uninsured drivers could cause me.
For the good of society is a logical fallacy equivalent to 'for the children'. You can't charge me money to operate a motor vehicle and threaten me if I don't have insurance just because I may harm Someone. When I get in my truck I'm ready and willing to accept responsibility and take care of it if something happens. You're sacrificing the rights of others for the convenience of society. You can feel free to have insurance because you decided that, but you can't force others to make the same sacrifice as yourself. Idk Kants stance on the that. But his principles in the book I spoke about lays out that using another as a means to your own end is immoral. Liscencing is simply stealing our rights and selling them back to us under the guise of public safety. The powers that be, haha, have convinced you to give up your sovereignty 'for the good of society'. Id prefer to speak in principle rather than defining a bunch of examples. So if you could logically defend your statement that laws are not infringing on the sovereignty of individuals then I'm all ears. We could talk about specific situations all day and get no where.
So you're going to get in your truck and drive without insurance,, and it's ok because you'll "deal with anything yourself"? So if you crash into someone's Ferrari and total it, are you going to buy him a new one? What if you put him in the hospital? Will you pay for all his medical bills? The money you pay for insurance isn't you "being charged for operating a vehicle", it's paying a premium to a company that will reimburse you if you wreck your car or injure someone. You don't seem to understand what terms like "sovereignty" or "rights" mean. There's no inalienable right to drive. The legal concept of sovereignty doesn't apply to individuals. You're essentially arguing that every person is a nation unto themselves. The basic idea of a law is that you give up some freedom for the overall social good. That's not at all comparable to a "think of the children" argument, which is an appeal to emotion. Why don't you want to defend your own assertions? You said that restricting someone's freedom to drive is infringing on their "sovereignty". So logically, you're asserting that even if someone is engaging is harmful behavior, like say, drunk driving, because they have "sovereignty", society has no moral right to stop them? What about my right not to be killed by a drunk driver? Can't you see how insane that argument is? Any form of social control is tyranny?
You're telling me everyone is not sovereignty because of some social contract. I don't recall signing one. I'm here to tell you that in spite of oppressive governments, we are sovereign. I prefer to speak in principle rather than defining a bunch of examples. So if you could logically defend your statement that laws are not infringing on the sovereignty of individuals then I'm all ears. We could talk about specific situations all day and get no where.
So if some asshole totals your truck you aren't going to sue them because they're sovereign and can do whatever the fuck they want?