Anarchists Have Taken Over Congress! - Harry Reid

reply to post by greencmp


The Constitution and Anarchism go pretty well together actually. The Constitution is not government. Personally though, as an Anarchist... it offends me deeply to be associated with any congresscreature besides Bernie Sanders.

What an ass. A two year old having a temper tantrum.

BTW our government is not Socialist, it's Corporatist.

ProfessorChaos
Harry Reid is a blithering idiot.

The only problem? People listen to him.

He does blither I do a good imitation.

reply to post by Kali74

Would you be interested in taking charge of your home town's "End Highway Robbery" (to eliminate meter maids and meters) campaign?

I am putting together a thread for it so we can make our symbolic pledges (no commitment required).

greencmp
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

If you want less government in the U.S the only way it will ever happen is to shatter the puppet show that is U.S bipartisan politics.

Yeah, well, that's kinda what I'm saying here, no?

It's more easily said then done! I believe the biggest problems lay in the way these candidates are elected and the campaign contributions which get them their media time! We can elect third parties only if the money is there for them to run a campaign! This will never happen though because the Elite control the Media and most of the money! I believe it is time to think outside the box that is representative government! It's obvious that
after almost 250 years it has become time to realize we the people need to have more say over the way we live,
the laws that govern and those choices which affect us all!

I agree with you that those that are supposed to represent us a mere puppets to the banks and corporations which keep them in office and write 60% of the laws that get passed! If we continue to allow the industrial world to choose for us we will forever be enslaved and once we have outlived our usefulness, discarded! One of the biggest problems is getting the people to unify, align and agree on how we need to start bringing about positive change! At one time I thought this would be possible some day but now I'm not so sure! It seems the more we find out about the way our world is run and the ignorance and apathy that allows the manipulation of the masses the less optimistic we become on the possibilities of change!
Maybe there are just too many of us, we have become to dependent of government and we fear taking any initiative to try and change anything Or maybe we are just too stupid to know that we can't keep living as sheep
but whatever the case may be the price of our shortcomings will soon be upon us!

reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom

It's more easily said then done!

We may not be able to end the fed just yet but as a baby step, we could eliminate all meter maids and meters!

So, what say you?

People need to make real demands on the existing system by endorsing 3rd party candidates and even abandoning the way elections work in the U.S in favor of a more parliamentary system.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I've heard this argument before. Which multi- (3+) party democracies are "freer" than ours? Britain's? Israel's? Italy's? Japan's? In Italy, I think they have about 17 political parties. Oh to bask in their economic prosperity, their freedom from corporate influence on policy, their efficient and incorruptible public servants.

I think if you want to find an example of less government and greater individual freedom, you need to look not abroad but backward in time, to the essentially unfettered and unregulated period of American western expansion at the end of the 19th century, when corporations were the law and robber-barons could keep your 7-year-old chained to a machine at the mill until they felt like letting them leave.

Reid, for whatever you think of him, is right. His political opposition is not interested in its own policy positions. It's interested in winning the next election and making sure the majority can't pass anything.

reply to post by greencmp


Wrong!

Most americans are minimal statists (capitalist leaning minarchists and socialist leaning minarchists) not anarchists.

Most of congress are sold out corporatists not anarchists.

reply to post by michael22

Check out the thread, it has evolved.

Also, the lead up thread is here:
Who are the real anarchists?

Also, also, as a disgraced former politician and cabinet member, maybe this is your big chance to re-enter the scene?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

See above post, the thread is actually going somewhere...

We may not be able to end the fed just yet but as a baby step, we could eliminate all meter maids and meters!

So, what say you?

reply to post by greencmp


It's a great idea. Businesses will probably universally support the idea that their customers will be able to park and shop without fear of a ticket, providing that the workers at those businesses don't just take the spots in front of a neighboring business and stay there all day. (I can think of at least one fix for that, and I'm sure there are others.)

So, there are two components. One is parking meter elimination. The other is meter maid elimination.

Parking meter elimination should be done tomorrow. "Dear citizens, it's going to take us a couple weeks to yank out all the meters, but in the meanwhile you should just ignore them. Feel free to help us out if you want to get in some cardio with a 5-pound hammer."

Meter maid elimination: Privatization of parking enforcement is so insane that I won't even bother attacking it. But minimal — minimal — parking enforcement is an unfortunate necessity to keep inner cities from becoming impassable. I'd say about 94% of parking tickets are just a use-tax and should be eliminated, so figure you get rid of about 80% of parking enforcement (since the enforcers will spend more time locating a genuine infraction that's stopping traffic, and more time covering ground than they currently do).

Parking enforcement should be handled by police, because they aren't interested in writing parking tickets, so that will be a limiter. As should trash removal, but that's another thread. (Oh the joy I would take in watching that happen.) It should also be made explicitly illegal, felonious, imprisonable, for their supervisors to give them quotas or suggest quotas or come within five miles of acting like there is an implied quota.

But sadly, as I think about it, you'd need to enforce 2-hour parking in retail areas, otherwise businesses would be (rightly) upset about the fact that there is no parking available within 8 blocks of their business. You need parking spot turnover. You need to force that.

As you wade into this, which I heartily support, I'd recommend you talk to some civil engineers who deal with traffic and planning, and also get yourself to your local chamber of commerce meeting, and see if you can start a conversation with some business owners to see what they would do. They've probably been thinking about it longer than we have. Good luck.

reply to post by michael22

I knew you would have ideas, can we get Bill to brainstorm on this too?

Meter maid elimination: Privatization of parking enforcement is so insane that I won't even bother attacking it. But minimal — minimal — parking enforcement is an unfortunate necessity to keep inner cities from becoming impassable. I'd say about 94% of parking tickets are just a use-tax and should be eliminated, so figure you get rid of about 80% of parking enforcement (since the enforcers will spend more time locating a genuine infraction that's stopping traffic, and more time covering ground than they currently do).

Herein lies the only real problem besides nepotism (which is a biggun for sure but it represents the most important victories if we can achieve them), there actually are some cities and squares that have parking issues.

But, fear not, pick a town rather than a city and/or focus on the low hanging fruit areas of your town or city. This is a symbolic gesture after all which happens to also be an economic 'stimulus' (sorry, had to say it)

We want ZERO or near-zero resistance for phase 1.

Welcome aboard Mrs. President, glad to have you!

Welcome aboard Mrs. President, glad to have you!

reply to post by greencmp


It's Madam President, and I don't know what you're referring to.

reply to post by michael22

It's Madam President, and I don't know what you're referring to.

Eh'em... Pardon us Madam Former Secretary, we did not mean to offend!

We are looking for symbolic volunteers (no commitment needed) to organize a grassroots "End Highway Robbery" campaign to remove meter maids and meters across the country.

Can we put you down for handling Washington, D.C.?

We realize that when the government shuts down it will appear to have already taken place but, that is not actually true, the local D.C. government will resume along with the meter maids.

We eagerly await your response.

Best regards,

The People of the United States of America

Thoreau opens his book "Civil DIsobedience" with the following:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.

Essentially, he is restating in a more verbose manner the sentiments of Pythagoras:

As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom.

These sentiments I agree with. I have cheekily labelled myself as a "Freedom Fundamentalist". What I imply by this is that I am everything just shy of anarchist. I agree with regulation of finance to prevent fraud of the people (but not to deter action of wealth by individuals).

I don't mind some of the fees collected to maintain roads, etc.

But I also believe that they should provide financial account on a dollar for dollar level.

reply to post by greencmp


This is like one of those lists where everybody discusses who's bringing the soda and the cupcakes. I can appreciate that. You can put me down for copywriting, design support, general strategy, and napkins. I'm not pounding the pavement for nobody. Start a non-profit, get some money, call Huma.

michael22
reply to post by greencmp

 

This is like one of those lists where everybody discusses who's bringing the soda and the cupcakes. I can appreciate that. You can put me down for copywriting, design support, general strategy, and napkins. I'm not pounding the pavement for nobody. Start a non-profit, get some money, call Huma.

Old Potluck Clinton here has a strong force of sarcasm within her/him/it.

This is like one of those lists where everybody discusses who's bringing the soda and the cupcakes. I can appreciate that. You can put me down for copywriting, design support, general strategy, and napkins. I'm not pounding the pavement for nobody. Start a non-profit, get some money, call Huma.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I should have said "copywriting, design support, napkins, and general strategy". I regret that I failed to make the third of four things the joke, instead of the fourth thing, which kind of doesn't work. I regret the error.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Great quote, one of my favorites!

These sentiments I agree with. I have cheekily labelled myself as a "Freedom Fundamentalist". What I imply by this is that I am everything just shy of anarchist. I agree with regulation of finance to prevent fraud of the people (but not to deter action of wealth by individuals).

I too am a stalwart defender of the constitution. My conclusion today was that we must demand anarchy in order that we may compromise and settle for getting back our republic. Basically, the same strategy that has taken it away but, in reverse.

We can also learn from the progressives in their tactics, namely grassroots legislative action in the initial form of eliminating all meter maids and meters in our home towns. Low hanging fruit with almost no resistance.

If you can get through the thread, the evolution will make sense but, the essence of it is in the last few posts.

Is good, ya?

reply to post by michael22


Madam Secretary, you have never been known for your punchlines.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Old Potluck Clinton here has a strong force of sarcasm within her/him/it.

She is good for the 'war on women' demographic. I bet she makes good coffee too.