Sorry, it’s never gonna happen. Political parties form naturally.  Human beings are social creatures and those with similar values and goals will always come join together in order to multiply their their perceived power.
One person with an opinion is just that..... but a group with the same opinion is a force.
One way or another, parties always form.
For many of us, the real problem is a group of 18 or so Senators with somewhat different opinions and goals than the majority of their constituents (I’m being kind).
Isn’t nepotism wonderful? The politicians, bureaucrats, and DC/New York media are all intermarried to an extent that would shock the hell out of the American people, if they actually knew about it.
Elaine Chao kept her maiden name instead of becoming Mrs. Mitch McConnell or Mrs. Elaine McConnell.
Many in Washington do the same thing....... Gee, I wonder why?
Are we talking about formal parties or factions? Even if the former were somehow "banned", the latter (and their attendant voting blocs) would persist. They might even grow stronger, as all money would become "dark money" when driven underground.
If it's factions we're abolishing, then we'd need to disincentive those somehow. Removing the "power of the purse" would be one way. No taxation or PACs, only individual donations to federal project proposals. Most factionalism is the result of pork barrel spending.
Nailed it I think. Factions are a rule of human existence. The only way to keep them from fighting for dominant control of everyone's life is to remove the mechanisms for controlling people's lives. So long as the government, whether federal or state level, probably even county, has the power to control, people are going to form factions to fight for that control. The best you can hope for is to minimize the control, and thus minimize the purpose for the fight.
I think maybe the better way to put it is "ignore capricious laws." Because as it stands the mechanism for establishing or striking them is by political means, which is at the mercy of parties/factions.
A large part of the reason that we are here is because one of our parties has been taken over by people who consider themselves to be experts on just about everything.
They are climate experts,
They are pandemic experts,
They are transportation experts,
In fact, they are not just ‘experts’, but they are more intelligent than the general public....just ask them.
They also have a penchant for using the government (meaning force) to impose their will. And they don’t care much for the Constitution either.
Unless/until we get back to a place where both sides agree on the basic rules for the operation of government (honest elections, apolitical law enforcement, etc) and individual liberties, we will continue in domestic Cold War....maybe even a hot one.
Yup, eliminate laws that we don't want to see enforced in 100% of the cases, arbitrary laws, and, what is the same, all of regulatory law. When politicians can control what is bought and sold, politicians are the first things bought and sold.
I believe it would be far easier to enshrine campaign finance laws ( both donation and funding via the parties machines/pacs ) as well as lobbyist laws. Then maybe we could educate the public ( aha hahaha) so that was no need for term limits.
We start by making it fucking impossible to become rich by serving the People. I think there ought to be taxpayer funded,private but def not luxurious ( maybe take over a college?) Housing for those serving. Make it so that their room and board is decent,but not expansive/expensive...so that there is less that lobbyists can use to corrupt them...and thereby making it less...palatable...for those who seek Power.
You serve,you leave,you stay the hell outta the halls of govt for umtptysquat years...
Trouble I have with expessing myself in text is, I'm deathly afraid of being misunderstood - it's both a personality trait and the experiences of swedish academia: anything that can be misconstrued will be so in the worst possible way.
And then you're on defence, and "he who explains himself, blames himself" is an Iron Law in academic debate when accusations fly.
I think the problem with this plan is that there is a huge amount of incentive to pay off/finance people who can sell political power, and the same people who would be in charge of making that off limits are those who benefit from what they are trying to ban. Even in the best case scenario, you would have lots of people with a lot of incentive to get around the system, which typically is a losing proposition to any defensive rule making.
On the other hand, I would be on board with a law making it illegal for people who work regulating an industry to ever accept money from anyone who worked in that industry, forever. I mean jail time illegal. If you work for the FTC you can't get paid for giving a talk at Citybank etc. without jail time. That seems like it would be a good first step, at least knocking down the low hanging fruit.
I have plans for that big win!! I buy one ticket ,every so often. I told my neighbor of some of my designs, and she said " Holyshit, I hope you win...!!"
You/yours and other substack fiends are in those plans... so be ready to saddle up. 🤨😁😂
To quote from the 'Lucky Luke' comic, the album where they're building a railroad:
"Too make good coffee, fill the pot with water. Then add coffee. Put a horseshoe on top of the coffee in the pot. If the horseshoe doesn't float, add more coffee."
Why yes. I like coffee you could repair tarmac with.
"making it fucking impossible to become rich by 'serving' the People." Consider yourself awarded the Ultimate Sooper Dooper Grand Prize for your recognition of the only workable solution to most of our problems!
It is ALWAYS about the money -- nothing else. In part this is grift to the office-holders themselves. Having spent a lot of time in Washington (and a couple state capitols) most of that is under-the-table and "in kind" and will be near impossible to eliminate.
But the heady part for virtually all politicians is to extort money from YOU (the only legal extortion out there -- pay or die and the government says so) and give it to either their pet causes, or, more usually, causes which make them even more popular among their peer groups. (None of which are ever actual constituents except by accident.)
This is why I long ago became a single issue voter...and you should, too. I vote for the people who will steal the least of my hard-earned money. No matter what else they feel about whatever issues, they can do less harm if they have less money. If they had NO money, they could do virtually NO harm.
In a better world, assuming one believes in the inevitability of some taxes, each individual should be able to direct to where there taxes should go. I would pick the military and infrastructure -- someone else could pick pride-day parade support. This would make a happier populace by far, and would actually see the money go to, i expect, the best possible distribution. It would also emasculate (no sexist implications) politicians whose virtually sole power is to take your money and to spend it in places that you HATE in exchange for rewards (both obvious and hidden) that you never see or appreciate to their fullest extent.
We really do not need to mess with any of the other things...they will sort themselves out naturally (term limits will not be necessary...without the ego boost of being able to steal your money, most people will leave soon anyway; lobbyists will largely be superfluous; etc.). Just limit the amount that can be collected (from anyone, irrespective of income) and let each person allocate the categories in which their money can be spent -- the rest will drop into place.
I proposed a similar approach to taxation in an economics paper over half a century ago. My prof rejected the paper as 'fantasy". Probably because it was a good idea.
Public voting for a candidate. Said candidate may then select a cabinet of ministers, each with their own codified and limited portfolio. Each minister is to oversee the carrying out of their tasks and duties.
Should a cabinet member or the elected chieftain wish to change, impose a new or remove an old law this must be put to the people first, with 65% of the votes in the affirmative, else the issue is held in abeyance for no less than one fiscal year, starting from the beginning of the next fiscal year. No one may sit for more than one term, where term is no shorter than three years or longer than five years.
That'd be one of doing it, which could work on all levels from local community to county and up to national. What the exact tasks, duties and so on on the elected should be would have to be codified in detail, of course.
Another way would be a lottery. Any citizen of the age of consent; not currently incarcerated or subject to the penal action; taxes paid in full for the preceding five years and otherwise free of financial debt to state on any level; citizen not ever having been found guilty of fraud, embezzlement or simlar crimes of confidence and deceit; nor crimes against minors; citizen not currently undergoing psychiatric treatment of any kind; is eligible to be drafted by casting of lots. Should citizen refuse, the office in question to remain un-occupied until end of term. Citizen may only ever be drafted once per office, and is considered to have waived all rights to participate in the draft if having refused to serve earlier.
The advantage of using a lottery would be that you'd get a representative set of people, which is all the rage I'm told.
What else? Oh yes: any and all persons holding any kind of office is to surrender all their material assets in whatever shape these may be, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sale of same, the proceeds to be kept for the elected official in question, and subject to change according to inflation, relative worth of currency, GDP/cap etc, until the term is up. Have the person divested themselves of all assets five years or shorter prior from being (s)elected for office, person is uneligible for office. During term, the elected person is to earn minimum wage; minimum state pension; minimum disability pay; veteran's pay; or welfare; whichever is lowest and no more. Any additionalincome of any kind becomes the property of the state.
Something like that, to ensure that no-one goes into any public office for the money.
Of course, I'd rather like to see some kind of national service in order for anyone to earn franchise and to be eligible for any office on any level, too. "Want to become a full citizen? Aren't you the lucky one! We have a place here, just opened up. Manually scraping barnacles off of a drilling rig in the North Sea. Only three years."
Anyone makes it through that, I fekking guarantee you they're not another Slick Willie, Tricky Dick, or Blustering Barrack.
How to get there? Weeellll... how do you get rid of mold in an old wall?
Maybe the choice is between having the current demokratur/uniparty system, or risking letting people vote directly on the issues, each and every one?
There's nothing saying having having a municipal referendum every quarter, a state-wide every year and a national/federal every other year on various issues would yield better results.
But it would be more democratic, harder to corrupt into a corporatist state, and if such things as fees and taxation is also under the vote, people woul care more and educate themselves more.
What kind of diplomatic relationship with China the US should pursue is indeed a question beyond most of us, if we move from having an opinion to being in a position of acting it out - but whether to raise the municipal garbage collection fees $50/quarter isn't beyond anyone.
I think (read: feel) that getting politics back to the concrete and tangible like that would have a knock-on, trickle-up effect, forcing those working in and around politics to adapt narratives and messaging once more to the actual voter.
Chin up, shoulders back and squared, chest out, back straight and walk with a bounce to your step does it for me when I'm depressed.
Seems body-posture affects the mood, so by affecting a strong confident pose, I fight off the ever-looming cloying miasma of depression.
And this realisation helped me tremendously:
I can't fix the world, or this nation or the town I lived in or the school I worked at. There's no thermal exhaust shaft and no Incom T-65 X-wing coming to shoot a proton torpedo down it. There's doing whatever little thing you can, when and where you can, and measuring oneself like this: "Do I cause harm and suffering through my actions or inactions?"
If no, then I'm doing alright.
That works for me. I think that people who want to right without to do harm, often hurt themselves emotionally by feeling bad that they can't "fix everything" and therefore stops seeing any hope.
To not give up, not give in, not give that inch - is victory of sorts, because you weren't defeated.
Follow the money that feeds the uniparty power to stifle the capture. Campaign finance and other pathways of influence including advertising on bills. Prohibit that money which is not from real everyday people. Outright bans from corporations and PACs. Limits on real persons to a (low) percentage of the median (not average) annual national income. Limit or eliminate fundraising by political parties to neuter them.
When a polo system allows the existence of an elite cabal of swamp creatures that control the campaigns to which funds flow, the people are bypassed, and there is no longer representation.
Historically, all attempts at implementing meaningful controls on campaign finance have failed. Established power blocs tend to circumvent whatever rules are imposed before the ink is dry on the latest version. Your post begins with the only rule that has been observed, "Follow the money".
AND the right to freely associate - this'll be a sticky one.
Not sure we can abolish parties, I think the only solution I see is finding a way to get states and the federal Uniparty to allow other political parties on ballots; Ds and Rs both actively resist/fight against such attempts though.
The only challenge I can see is the national level grift known as campaign finance.
I have always abhorred the idea of party politics, and gravitate towards those that can see the real issues and address them with real solutions (versus partisan buzzwords to entrance the pastured herd).
But without the multinational money cartels that fund their favored marionette, it is difficult to garner the support needed.
The source for the idea of political parties, is new (to me), that needs exploration.
It would probably take a new Amendment codifying decentralization somehow. The people might vote for it, but pols would never bring it to the table. Republicans might be more willing to blow up the parties, but Dems love The Party.
They can't. The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources. This means political parties and Citizens United -- but the alternative is worse.
"The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources."
Regardless of scale, scope and different starting positions?
Because if so, (to me) that's just a convoluted way of saying "Might is right" without saying it straight out.
"Yeah, the humungous planet-encompassing financial network of OmniCorp own 7.5% of the planet's GDP, but since they too have freedom of association we can't limit their ability to pool their resources".
Which leaves the people with the option of what type of revolutionary kind of -ism they want to throw their lot in with.
You see where I'm going? Principles (such as a "right to free assosiation") does not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist in any ideal world where they can always be applied equally and unequivocally. An olympic boxer using force to defend himself from a robber may well find himself on a charge for "övervåld" (meaning 'exessive force', it should tell you something of swedish indigenous culture thatwe have distinct word for that), despite the law being explicit about the right to defend oneself or a third person from immediate harm.
The boxer's ability to use force is beyond the typical situation the law (and thus the right) was formulated for handling.
It's not as clear-cut as you make, is what I'm saying.
"The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources."
Regardless of scale, scope and different starting positions?
Because if so, (to me) that's just a convoluted way of saying "Might is right" without saying it straight out.
----------
Like I said, this is better than the alternative, which is government banning who you can associate with and what you can say -- all because "might makes right".
--------
It's not as clear-cut as you make, is what I'm saying.
--------
It's clear cut in America (or is supposed to be). In Sweden you can make your own rules and allow the king to dictate what is and isn't allowable speech.
You should adress the point I made, shouldn't you? That differences in power between those using this right of association means the principle of it is nothing like it seems when viewed as principle only.
What you are in effect saying is that de facto monopolies like Twitter, Facebook and such are fine, if they are private and based on freedom of association.
Don't get tangled in principles as if they were commandments or sharia.. Draw from actual reality what the principles are at work, and the why, how and what effect their workings have.
Scrapping parties because funding rules & intense lobbying corrupts them is like scrapping cars because people steal them. A bit. I know what I mean, anyway. In Britain there are rules to stop people going through the revolving door into industries they once regulated, but they're rarely applied. Also, what's to stop Bezos & Gates teaming up to fund an election for themselves, if there are no parties.
Every time I see Biden at his tiny desk, not in the oval office, for his announcements, his photo-op vaccines and his other foolishness, you have to wonder who has their feet up on the big desk in the oval office, and if that individual (s) and their party is CCP, Ukraine Blackmail Party or whatever other crook slithered in, with Biden as accomplice. Pardon my cynicism, but no other president in US history seems as crooked as jb. So that party, whatever it is, is even worse than D and R.
There’s power and safety in numbers. While we may cherish our individualism, we seek out others to advance our safety, survival, ideas, agendas, causes. I believe there will always be sheep dogs and sheep, therefore, the herding instincts are prevalent enough to cause us to form groups, be it political parties, religious groups, eco-terrorists, or knitting clubs.
Sorry, it’s never gonna happen. Political parties form naturally.  Human beings are social creatures and those with similar values and goals will always come join together in order to multiply their their perceived power.
One person with an opinion is just that..... but a group with the same opinion is a force.
One way or another, parties always form.
For many of us, the real problem is a group of 18 or so Senators with somewhat different opinions and goals than the majority of their constituents (I’m being kind).
We need to find a way to marginalize them.....
You mean like they have marginalized us?
They are like an inoperable tumor, there appears to be no way to remove them.
A relatively small group of ‘moderates’ and ‘pragmatists’, led by McConnell always seem to stab the rest of the party in the back.
McConnell has done some good things..... but just enough to get re-elected. In many ways, he is no different from Pelosi and Schumer.
Their interests come first.....
And McC's wifey's maybe even.
Isn’t nepotism wonderful? The politicians, bureaucrats, and DC/New York media are all intermarried to an extent that would shock the hell out of the American people, if they actually knew about it.
Elaine Chao kept her maiden name instead of becoming Mrs. Mitch McConnell or Mrs. Elaine McConnell.
Many in Washington do the same thing....... Gee, I wonder why?
Maybe they wouldn't want the family back home to think they'd switched loyalties when they married.
"family"
Well said.
I'm for peaceful agitation.
I would prefer to be on offense.
Next steps would be how the guvment responds.
I don't think we're ever going to find another way.
We're losing badly now with philosophical musings.
Are we talking about formal parties or factions? Even if the former were somehow "banned", the latter (and their attendant voting blocs) would persist. They might even grow stronger, as all money would become "dark money" when driven underground.
If it's factions we're abolishing, then we'd need to disincentive those somehow. Removing the "power of the purse" would be one way. No taxation or PACs, only individual donations to federal project proposals. Most factionalism is the result of pork barrel spending.
Nailed it I think. Factions are a rule of human existence. The only way to keep them from fighting for dominant control of everyone's life is to remove the mechanisms for controlling people's lives. So long as the government, whether federal or state level, probably even county, has the power to control, people are going to form factions to fight for that control. The best you can hope for is to minimize the control, and thus minimize the purpose for the fight.
One part of the possible solution is to somehow start eliminating capricious laws.
More control, power and grifting is tied to that than money alone. IMO capricious law IS their finance vehicle. That is the "dark" money.
Capricious law is the road to tyranny not iron law.
Our founders knew that. Yet here we are.
Eliminate them *how* though? By what mechanism?
I think maybe the better way to put it is "ignore capricious laws." Because as it stands the mechanism for establishing or striking them is by political means, which is at the mercy of parties/factions.
Well I agree with you.
You have to consider that we'd be the only ones "ignoring" the laws.
Think masks.
Masks is an example of a capricious law which I've ignored, and still remain free from jail. Sounds like the beginning of a proof.
Lol. You and I are proof of concept!
How many others?
My point is that's are starting point.
I think its worth fighting for...but we have to be realistic with where we're at.
We have two generations who would have no idea what you and I are talking about.
A large part of the reason that we are here is because one of our parties has been taken over by people who consider themselves to be experts on just about everything.
They are climate experts,
They are pandemic experts,
They are transportation experts,
In fact, they are not just ‘experts’, but they are more intelligent than the general public....just ask them.
They also have a penchant for using the government (meaning force) to impose their will. And they don’t care much for the Constitution either.
Unless/until we get back to a place where both sides agree on the basic rules for the operation of government (honest elections, apolitical law enforcement, etc) and individual liberties, we will continue in domestic Cold War....maybe even a hot one.
100%
Yup, eliminate laws that we don't want to see enforced in 100% of the cases, arbitrary laws, and, what is the same, all of regulatory law. When politicians can control what is bought and sold, politicians are the first things bought and sold.
I believe it would be far easier to enshrine campaign finance laws ( both donation and funding via the parties machines/pacs ) as well as lobbyist laws. Then maybe we could educate the public ( aha hahaha) so that was no need for term limits.
We start by making it fucking impossible to become rich by serving the People. I think there ought to be taxpayer funded,private but def not luxurious ( maybe take over a college?) Housing for those serving. Make it so that their room and board is decent,but not expansive/expensive...so that there is less that lobbyists can use to corrupt them...and thereby making it less...palatable...for those who seek Power.
You serve,you leave,you stay the hell outta the halls of govt for umtptysquat years...
"We start by making it fucking impossible to become rich by serving the People."
I cannot like this enough.
That's high praise . I'm gunna be full of myself now for at least the next hour!
You should be honored. Rikard gives out exactly one "like" per year to only one person.
No more likes for anyone else in 23'
If I were politically astute I would now quietly auction off that one "like" , having paid attention to the doling out of Carbon Credits... 🤔
Well I'm on a Like Strike with Rikard until he starts getting to the point sooner in his comments.
Doubt anyone has ever accused him of being taciturn.
Lord knows I'm never verbose...:]
Likey Strike Means Fewer Talks?
You should hear me speak then. :)
Trouble I have with expessing myself in text is, I'm deathly afraid of being misunderstood - it's both a personality trait and the experiences of swedish academia: anything that can be misconstrued will be so in the worst possible way.
And then you're on defence, and "he who explains himself, blames himself" is an Iron Law in academic debate when accusations fly.
Hence, verbosity.
I think the problem with this plan is that there is a huge amount of incentive to pay off/finance people who can sell political power, and the same people who would be in charge of making that off limits are those who benefit from what they are trying to ban. Even in the best case scenario, you would have lots of people with a lot of incentive to get around the system, which typically is a losing proposition to any defensive rule making.
On the other hand, I would be on board with a law making it illegal for people who work regulating an industry to ever accept money from anyone who worked in that industry, forever. I mean jail time illegal. If you work for the FTC you can't get paid for giving a talk at Citybank etc. without jail time. That seems like it would be a good first step, at least knocking down the low hanging fruit.
**We start by making it fucking impossible to become rich by serving the People
Buy a lottery ticket. You just won
I have plans for that big win!! I buy one ticket ,every so often. I told my neighbor of some of my designs, and she said " Holyshit, I hope you win...!!"
You/yours and other substack fiends are in those plans... so be ready to saddle up. 🤨😁😂
I always tell myself:
Somebody's got to win
I recognize it's bread-and-circuses... but if I spend $2 even 3x a month...its still cheaper than even 2 fancy coffees( which I don't drink).
Someone needs to win, and I believe in creating a self sufficiency zone... win/win/win.
Ryan, have you heard of Gravity Vortex Power Generation?? 'Toilet bowls' provide!
I don't think it can qualify as an opportunity cost if you would never do it! (Drink fancy coffee). 🙂
To quote from the 'Lucky Luke' comic, the album where they're building a railroad:
"Too make good coffee, fill the pot with water. Then add coffee. Put a horseshoe on top of the coffee in the pot. If the horseshoe doesn't float, add more coffee."
Why yes. I like coffee you could repair tarmac with.
Used as a " popular, non- necessary expenditure " example
Perpetual motion machine in my house
Have ye a way to harvest energy from it? If so,could it be done to scale. It bears digging into...
GV can be scaled both up and down...
"making it fucking impossible to become rich by 'serving' the People." Consider yourself awarded the Ultimate Sooper Dooper Grand Prize for your recognition of the only workable solution to most of our problems!
🤯
Maybe the answer is parties that don’t seek power at the federal level. Stick to state level issues. Perhaps even agitate for independence.
LIKE
Parties?
Stop THE Party. Defund those fuckers.
It is ALWAYS about the money -- nothing else. In part this is grift to the office-holders themselves. Having spent a lot of time in Washington (and a couple state capitols) most of that is under-the-table and "in kind" and will be near impossible to eliminate.
But the heady part for virtually all politicians is to extort money from YOU (the only legal extortion out there -- pay or die and the government says so) and give it to either their pet causes, or, more usually, causes which make them even more popular among their peer groups. (None of which are ever actual constituents except by accident.)
This is why I long ago became a single issue voter...and you should, too. I vote for the people who will steal the least of my hard-earned money. No matter what else they feel about whatever issues, they can do less harm if they have less money. If they had NO money, they could do virtually NO harm.
In a better world, assuming one believes in the inevitability of some taxes, each individual should be able to direct to where there taxes should go. I would pick the military and infrastructure -- someone else could pick pride-day parade support. This would make a happier populace by far, and would actually see the money go to, i expect, the best possible distribution. It would also emasculate (no sexist implications) politicians whose virtually sole power is to take your money and to spend it in places that you HATE in exchange for rewards (both obvious and hidden) that you never see or appreciate to their fullest extent.
We really do not need to mess with any of the other things...they will sort themselves out naturally (term limits will not be necessary...without the ego boost of being able to steal your money, most people will leave soon anyway; lobbyists will largely be superfluous; etc.). Just limit the amount that can be collected (from anyone, irrespective of income) and let each person allocate the categories in which their money can be spent -- the rest will drop into place.
Just one man's opinion, but long contemplated.
I proposed a similar approach to taxation in an economics paper over half a century ago. My prof rejected the paper as 'fantasy". Probably because it was a good idea.
TRUST. EXPERTS.
Public voting for a candidate. Said candidate may then select a cabinet of ministers, each with their own codified and limited portfolio. Each minister is to oversee the carrying out of their tasks and duties.
Should a cabinet member or the elected chieftain wish to change, impose a new or remove an old law this must be put to the people first, with 65% of the votes in the affirmative, else the issue is held in abeyance for no less than one fiscal year, starting from the beginning of the next fiscal year. No one may sit for more than one term, where term is no shorter than three years or longer than five years.
That'd be one of doing it, which could work on all levels from local community to county and up to national. What the exact tasks, duties and so on on the elected should be would have to be codified in detail, of course.
Another way would be a lottery. Any citizen of the age of consent; not currently incarcerated or subject to the penal action; taxes paid in full for the preceding five years and otherwise free of financial debt to state on any level; citizen not ever having been found guilty of fraud, embezzlement or simlar crimes of confidence and deceit; nor crimes against minors; citizen not currently undergoing psychiatric treatment of any kind; is eligible to be drafted by casting of lots. Should citizen refuse, the office in question to remain un-occupied until end of term. Citizen may only ever be drafted once per office, and is considered to have waived all rights to participate in the draft if having refused to serve earlier.
The advantage of using a lottery would be that you'd get a representative set of people, which is all the rage I'm told.
What else? Oh yes: any and all persons holding any kind of office is to surrender all their material assets in whatever shape these may be, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sale of same, the proceeds to be kept for the elected official in question, and subject to change according to inflation, relative worth of currency, GDP/cap etc, until the term is up. Have the person divested themselves of all assets five years or shorter prior from being (s)elected for office, person is uneligible for office. During term, the elected person is to earn minimum wage; minimum state pension; minimum disability pay; veteran's pay; or welfare; whichever is lowest and no more. Any additionalincome of any kind becomes the property of the state.
Something like that, to ensure that no-one goes into any public office for the money.
Of course, I'd rather like to see some kind of national service in order for anyone to earn franchise and to be eligible for any office on any level, too. "Want to become a full citizen? Aren't you the lucky one! We have a place here, just opened up. Manually scraping barnacles off of a drilling rig in the North Sea. Only three years."
Anyone makes it through that, I fekking guarantee you they're not another Slick Willie, Tricky Dick, or Blustering Barrack.
How to get there? Weeellll... how do you get rid of mold in an old wall?
Rikard...the majority of citizens here are so woefully ignorant that I would not want them voting for Anything.
Maybe the choice is between having the current demokratur/uniparty system, or risking letting people vote directly on the issues, each and every one?
There's nothing saying having having a municipal referendum every quarter, a state-wide every year and a national/federal every other year on various issues would yield better results.
But it would be more democratic, harder to corrupt into a corporatist state, and if such things as fees and taxation is also under the vote, people woul care more and educate themselves more.
What kind of diplomatic relationship with China the US should pursue is indeed a question beyond most of us, if we move from having an opinion to being in a position of acting it out - but whether to raise the municipal garbage collection fees $50/quarter isn't beyond anyone.
I think (read: feel) that getting politics back to the concrete and tangible like that would have a knock-on, trickle-up effect, forcing those working in and around politics to adapt narratives and messaging once more to the actual voter.
Too true and devoutly to be worked for: local politics wagging the tail of all politics above it.
I'm not sure what to do,Rikard... its such a mess 😑
Chin up, shoulders back and squared, chest out, back straight and walk with a bounce to your step does it for me when I'm depressed.
Seems body-posture affects the mood, so by affecting a strong confident pose, I fight off the ever-looming cloying miasma of depression.
And this realisation helped me tremendously:
I can't fix the world, or this nation or the town I lived in or the school I worked at. There's no thermal exhaust shaft and no Incom T-65 X-wing coming to shoot a proton torpedo down it. There's doing whatever little thing you can, when and where you can, and measuring oneself like this: "Do I cause harm and suffering through my actions or inactions?"
If no, then I'm doing alright.
That works for me. I think that people who want to right without to do harm, often hurt themselves emotionally by feeling bad that they can't "fix everything" and therefore stops seeing any hope.
To not give up, not give in, not give that inch - is victory of sorts, because you weren't defeated.
Follow the money that feeds the uniparty power to stifle the capture. Campaign finance and other pathways of influence including advertising on bills. Prohibit that money which is not from real everyday people. Outright bans from corporations and PACs. Limits on real persons to a (low) percentage of the median (not average) annual national income. Limit or eliminate fundraising by political parties to neuter them.
When a polo system allows the existence of an elite cabal of swamp creatures that control the campaigns to which funds flow, the people are bypassed, and there is no longer representation.
Historically, all attempts at implementing meaningful controls on campaign finance have failed. Established power blocs tend to circumvent whatever rules are imposed before the ink is dry on the latest version. Your post begins with the only rule that has been observed, "Follow the money".
If we have a uniparty swamp acting as a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people, are we back to taxation without representation ?
Yep! On both posts!
I don't want to think today. That's all I do, is think. I'm tired of it.
It's an optional assignment.
Release Epstein list and tapes & we can have a clean slate.
AND the right to freely associate - this'll be a sticky one.
Not sure we can abolish parties, I think the only solution I see is finding a way to get states and the federal Uniparty to allow other political parties on ballots; Ds and Rs both actively resist/fight against such attempts though.
The only challenge I can see is the national level grift known as campaign finance.
I have always abhorred the idea of party politics, and gravitate towards those that can see the real issues and address them with real solutions (versus partisan buzzwords to entrance the pastured herd).
But without the multinational money cartels that fund their favored marionette, it is difficult to garner the support needed.
The source for the idea of political parties, is new (to me), that needs exploration.
It would probably take a new Amendment codifying decentralization somehow. The people might vote for it, but pols would never bring it to the table. Republicans might be more willing to blow up the parties, but Dems love The Party.
They can't. The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources. This means political parties and Citizens United -- but the alternative is worse.
"The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources."
Regardless of scale, scope and different starting positions?
Because if so, (to me) that's just a convoluted way of saying "Might is right" without saying it straight out.
"Yeah, the humungous planet-encompassing financial network of OmniCorp own 7.5% of the planet's GDP, but since they too have freedom of association we can't limit their ability to pool their resources".
Which leaves the people with the option of what type of revolutionary kind of -ism they want to throw their lot in with.
You see where I'm going? Principles (such as a "right to free assosiation") does not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist in any ideal world where they can always be applied equally and unequivocally. An olympic boxer using force to defend himself from a robber may well find himself on a charge for "övervåld" (meaning 'exessive force', it should tell you something of swedish indigenous culture thatwe have distinct word for that), despite the law being explicit about the right to defend oneself or a third person from immediate harm.
The boxer's ability to use force is beyond the typical situation the law (and thus the right) was formulated for handling.
It's not as clear-cut as you make, is what I'm saying.
"The right to free association necessarily means the right to pool your resources."
Regardless of scale, scope and different starting positions?
Because if so, (to me) that's just a convoluted way of saying "Might is right" without saying it straight out.
----------
Like I said, this is better than the alternative, which is government banning who you can associate with and what you can say -- all because "might makes right".
--------
It's not as clear-cut as you make, is what I'm saying.
--------
It's clear cut in America (or is supposed to be). In Sweden you can make your own rules and allow the king to dictate what is and isn't allowable speech.
You should adress the point I made, shouldn't you? That differences in power between those using this right of association means the principle of it is nothing like it seems when viewed as principle only.
What you are in effect saying is that de facto monopolies like Twitter, Facebook and such are fine, if they are private and based on freedom of association.
Don't get tangled in principles as if they were commandments or sharia.. Draw from actual reality what the principles are at work, and the why, how and what effect their workings have.
Through what power are you going to stop these people from freely associating? How is it not force IN REALITY?
There's only one power in the end, isn't there?
Always.
Yep. That's why we need to be sure the laws we're willing to kill for the laws we create!
Scrapping parties because funding rules & intense lobbying corrupts them is like scrapping cars because people steal them. A bit. I know what I mean, anyway. In Britain there are rules to stop people going through the revolving door into industries they once regulated, but they're rarely applied. Also, what's to stop Bezos & Gates teaming up to fund an election for themselves, if there are no parties.
I wonder if it would be possible to go after them for fraud or breach of contract.
Every time I see Biden at his tiny desk, not in the oval office, for his announcements, his photo-op vaccines and his other foolishness, you have to wonder who has their feet up on the big desk in the oval office, and if that individual (s) and their party is CCP, Ukraine Blackmail Party or whatever other crook slithered in, with Biden as accomplice. Pardon my cynicism, but no other president in US history seems as crooked as jb. So that party, whatever it is, is even worse than D and R.
There’s power and safety in numbers. While we may cherish our individualism, we seek out others to advance our safety, survival, ideas, agendas, causes. I believe there will always be sheep dogs and sheep, therefore, the herding instincts are prevalent enough to cause us to form groups, be it political parties, religious groups, eco-terrorists, or knitting clubs.
Appendix to the previous diatribe:
No debate such as this is complete without someone name-dropping Simone Weil and her "On the Abolition of All Political Parties".