Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

When you figure out what that "something else" is, please let us know. There are lots of options to consider: boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, civil disobedience, monkey-wrenching, etc. Perhaps you are looking to build an alternate society from the ground up? I have spent many years considering that idea, but realize that it won't work for a variety of reasons.

However, if you want to strike at the heart of capitalism, set up an alternate bank and currency.

---

Everything you said and more. I've considered alternative economies, and how to implement them. Economy wise, something not quite like a bank, as that falls under the jurisdiction of the Fed, but something like a temporary credit union, intentionally made to collapse and composed of volunteers who can easily go elsewhere once the dollar collapses. We don't want something strong enough that it REPLACES the Fed either, you see.

I'd also like to see and encourage at least a partial resurgence of the barter system, as that also falls outside the domain of taxation and the current capital. Nothing like how many chickens for a doctor visit (yet?), but at least for some necessities, food and clothing and shelter, and which can also make use of those community gardens I see cropping up here and there for the poorer sorts.

Both could be done at a local level with just a loose organization of citizens.

But at the same time, you can't just be looking at the economy, you have to attack the machine from all fronts, have people working on building other stuff or attacking different parts. I think we do eventually need to build a new kind of society, and I don't think it can be done piecemeal.

FREM: Yeah, I know. I just figured moles were more dangerous. Goons will just beat on you. Moles will turn you in to a hostile justice system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
I'm wondering what would happen if a substantial percentage of the voters, say 10%, wrote in "None of the above" in any race in the next national election. Would it convince folk that they had choices other than Democrat or Republican?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Isn't that in essence what happens every election? Less than half the eligible voters tend to turn out, so it's pretty much like having half of the voters say "none of the above".

---

Quote:

---

I suggest we play the game OUR way - by voting, and keep on voting - to remove those who don't serve us. We have the power, we have the tool.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Isn't that in essence what happens every election? Less than half the eligible voters tend to turn out, so it's pretty much like having half of the voters say "none of the above".

---

I don't think so. If folk just don't vote, politicians can say that it's because they're satisfied with the status quo or just too apathetic. However, if a large percentage of folks went to the trouble to go the the polls and affirmatively declare that none of the people running had their support - that they actually opposed any of the candidates winning - it might let folks know there was another alternative.

How many times have you heard folks say they end up voting for the lesser of two evils? Why not vote for none of the evils?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They weed out anyone not wholly beholden to them by the process of getting on a ballot in the first damn place ..."

By your reckoning, a Ron Paul or Henry Waxman or Dennis Kucinich should not be possible. And yet - there they are. It's not that we don't have them at all, it's that we don't have enough of them. We can change that. It is perfectly within reach. All we have to do - is use the power we have already.



My dear, you always had the power.

Yeah I know, it takes away from my argument. I just couldn't resist.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
By your reckoning, a Ron Paul or Henry Waxman or Dennis Kucinich should not be possible. And yet - there they are. It's not that we don't have them at all, it's that we don't have enough of them. We can change that. It is perfectly within reach. All we have to do - is use the power we have already.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Nope.

Since by that time you've already invested in the game - that whole sham, primaries and whatnot, serves to ELIMINATE your choices, it's a magicians force, you see ?

They weed out anyone not wholly beholden to them by the process of getting on a ballot in the first damn place, all the regs and hoops to jump through, and then weed em out even further by testing their loyalty to the agenda of the powers that be.

By the time you're ALLOWED to make a decision, it's already been made for you, whether you realize it or not.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

The plans and schemes of tyrants are broken by many things. They shatter against cliffs of heroic struggle. They rupture on reefs of open resistance. And they are slowly eroded, bit by little bit, on the very beaches where they measure triumph, by countless grains of sand. By the stubborn little decencies of humble little men.
-David Drake: In the Heart of Darkness

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I am trying, and failing, to understand why such a system should be supported ..."

Because the largest single voting block is the "I didn't bother" one. And after decades of the "I didn't bother" vote, what has changed? What has gotten better? If MORE people joined the "I didn't bother" block do you think THAT would improve things?

If what you're doing hasn't ever worked, isn't working, and doesn't look likely to work, it might be time to do something different.


"... clearly a majority of the people we might ever elect for office WILL be corrupt, or have to become corrupt ..." This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Granted it's easier to be corrupt under our (non-parliamentary) system b/c the people have to wait for the next election cycle to boot you out - but a little bit of thought and memory fix that right up. But an apathetic voting block - guarantees a corrupt result.

I have posted this many times already - overall, we have the government we deserve. We, being the apathetic "I didn't bother" voters.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I am trying, and failing, to understand why such a system should be supported ..."

Because the largest single voting block is the "I didn't bother" one. And after decades of the "I didn't bother" vote, what has changed? What has gotten better? If MORE people joined the "I didn't bother" block do you think THAT would improve things?

If what you're doing hasn't ever worked, isn't working, and doesn't look likely to work, it might be time to do something different.


"... clearly a majority of the people we might ever elect for office WILL be corrupt, or have to become corrupt ..." This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Granted it's easier to be corrupt under our (non-parliamentary) system b/c the people have to wait for the next election cycle to boot you out - but a little bit of thought and memory fix that right up. But an apathetic voting block - guarantees a corrupt result.

I have posted this many times already - overall, we have the government we deserve. We, being the apathetic "I didn't bother" voters.

---

Oh, so the politicians have absolutely NO responsibility to do the job they were selected for? The politicians are not at fault if they engage in cronyism and corporate handouts and general corruption?

---

Quote:

---

Those of you who still have faith in this system aren't ever going to be convinced by the likes of me. But you might want to consider that maybe the reason most people don't vote isn't because they're too busy watching the next season of American Idol, but perhaps, in a way they maybe can't even articulate, they feel like me. Maybe this system and all its heartless, hopeless, cubicle dwelling inhumanity has crushed out all belief in good government and decency and even a better life. Maybe the reason the incumbents never get voted out is because people are worried that the new guy might be WORSE. And maybe they aren't wrong.

I do hope it turns out for you.

---