• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why do you still support our system of government?

Why do you still support our system of government?

  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% who think it is working properly.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • I’m one of the 15% - 20% but think any problems can easily be fixed.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 15% - 20% but think it’s not the system it’s the party running it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but think it’s not the system but the people running it.

    Votes: 11 33.3%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but don’t think there’s enough support to reinvent it.

    Votes: 6 18.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • I’m among the 80% - 85% but just don’t give a crap.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I’m not American, and not that concernd about your mess.

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Total voters
    33
That is a serious national problem, IMO.
We need a better people.
They must learn "compromise", its meaning and use..

Nonsense. What possible "compromise" can be made when one party wishes to grant 11 million people amnesty after violating our immigration laws and the other party does not? These 11 million people did not simply "slip through the cracks" they were allowed to remain unmolested by design. Our immigraton "enforcement" consists mainly of 20K border patrol agents to cover 2% of the nation and 5K ICE agents to cover the other 98% of the nation. It is rediculously easy for any illegal alien to get a job, send their kids to school, get free emergency medical care, rent/buy property and even to get a driver's permit.
 
That is a serious national problem, IMO.
We need a better people.
They must learn "compromise", its meaning and use..

Yes, it bears constant repeating: It is unjustified to initiate violence. Sadly, governments are some of the greatest offenders when it comes to initiating violence.
 
I don't.

Direct voting is the only way to go.
 
Last edited:
I don't.

Direct voting is the only way to go.

By direct voting do you mean a vote on each of the bills, amendments and other items that the senate and congress acts on. If you do, how many people will you employ to read and study the thousands of pieces of paperwork that you must deal with?
 
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” - Churchill

According to 'libertarian' Hans Herman Hoppe, monarchy is the best form of government. Lol.
 
Nonsense. What possible "compromise" can be made when one party wishes to grant 11 million people amnesty after violating our immigration laws and the other party does not? These 11 million people did not simply "slip through the cracks" they were allowed to remain unmolested by design. Our immigraton "enforcement" consists mainly of 20K border patrol agents to cover 2% of the nation and 5K ICE agents to cover the other 98% of the nation. It is rediculously easy for any illegal alien to get a job, send their kids to school, get free emergency medical care, rent/buy property and even to get a driver's permit.

In 2016, the GOP will have suddenly changed their mind. I think we both know that if they need it to win the White House, they'll do whatever it takes.
 
According to 'libertarian' Hans Herman Hoppe, monarchy is the best form of government. Lol.

This is why I don't trust the label of "libertarian." It means whatever anybody wants it to mean.
 
This is why I don't trust the label of "libertarian." It means whatever anybody wants it to mean.

After recently debating 'libertarians' who supported the Drug War, Iraq War, and PRISM I happen to agree.
 
According to 'libertarian' Hans Herman Hoppe, monarchy is the best form of government. Lol.

No. According to Hoppe, the preferred system of governance would be as described in his book Democracy the God that Failed:

In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law for the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person's infringement on them is subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability.

As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence unconstitutional -- insofar as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation -- and abdicate.
 
No. According to Hoppe, the preferred system of governance would be as described in his book Democracy the God that Failed:

Hoppe's ideal form of govt:

In a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting life-styles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. 216-218
 
Hoppe's ideal form of govt:

In a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting life-styles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. 216-218

This quote does not, as did mine, describe the government suggested by Hoppe nor describe it's Constitution. If you want to know what sort of government Hoppe supports to back and read what I quoted, in which he specifies what the constitution for such a government would look like.
 
But our arguments are based on the same premise; our population is neither informed, nor is it motivated to become and remain informed. Couple this with the fact the main sources of information provide skewed viewpoints, often in support of one side or the other of our current two party system, nothing will change.

There simply aren't enough people who do try to stay informed to sway the rest by our efforts. I was asking HOW under such circumstances. Your response was by going out and informing. That's why I replied people who try don't have the resources to compete with those in power who do have such resources. They may try but it's like a mouse squeeking in the middle of a thunderstorm.

The uninformed and the misinformed generally dont do anything. The former couldnt care less, the latter just talks about it. And the few of them that did do something will only do it once. Its the informed that you have to worry about.
 
This quote does not, as did mine, describe the government suggested by Hoppe nor describe it's Constitution. If you want to know what sort of government Hoppe supports to back and read what I quoted, in which he specifies what the constitution for such a government would look like.

I did read the quote, and to the undiscerning eye it looks quite good. But then you read: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property.

This is where my Hoppe quote comes in. One would think the two quotes contradict each other. But as a believer in landed property first and foremost, he sees no problem in the owners of a territory (whether its a covenant, guild, individual, etc) dictating to others living in that territory.

Do you deny that he believes that a strictly religious territory should have the authority to physically remove those who do not conform?
 
No political system ever devised has succeeded in changing human nature. That nature involves creating societies of unequal power and influence, motivated by greed, selfishness and the simple desire to control others, and so about all that a political system can ever accomplish is to temper this nature to some degree. I think ours does about as good a job in this regard as any other in theory, what with its system of checks and balances, but the problem lies in the way it is currently practiced and the lack of vigilance in maintaining that temperence.
Pretty much agree with this, but is it the desire to control others, or a desire to set one self up? In other words, would many of these people truly care what others do as long as they get everything they can for themselves? Or, is the control the means to the end of setting themselves up?

Completely agree with the lack of vigilance part.
 
I did read the quote, and to the undiscerning eye it looks quite good. But then you read: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property.

This is where my Hoppe quote comes in. One would think the two quotes contradict each other. But as a believer in landed property first and foremost, he sees no problem in the owners of a territory (whether its a covenant, guild, individual, etc) dictating to others living in that territory.

Do you deny that he believes that a strictly religious territory should have the authority to physically remove those who do not conform?

No, I don't deny that his position is that a property owner has may exclude whomever he wishes from his property.

BTW, I don't think the two quotes contradict each other.
 
- SC judges shall no longer be appointed by the respective President, but elected by a two/third majority of House and/or Congress (limiting partisanship of judges; professional expertize should count and respect for what the Constitution actually says)
Who would nominate them?
 
The final downfall of the American system has been predicted before, but here we are still here to predict it again. We survived the Civil War, by any measure a worse time than this. The Great Depression should have brought us down, but we survived. For the moment, large portions of the population have decided that their way is the only way and adherence to that way is more important than the survival of the nation. Of course, if people continue to act on that belief, we are doomed, but I think we just have not come quite close enough to the edge yet. When the average person's life becomes so uncomfortable that he or she is willing to get of his or her complacent ass and demand change, change will come. That will mean the people telling both parties, "We don't care about your sacred beliefs. We expect you to find solutions to our problems, and, if you don't, we'll damned well find someone who will." We will know the day is close when incumbents of both parties are running terrified and promising change and delivering. From social security, to military spending, to health care - you name it, all of our problems are solvable by good-willed people intent on examining facts, giving up posturing, and compromising. :stop:
 
No, I don't deny that his position is that a property owner has may exclude whomever he wishes from his property.

BTW, I don't think the two quotes contradict each other.

Then you have confirmed: Hoppe believes the best form of govt is monarchy.
 
I disagree. I think the root of our problems is that some people think that their choices should be forcibly imposed on otherwise uninvolved third parties.

That's always been part of American politics.

Follow the money and you'll see where all our problems lie.
 
Then you have confirmed: Hoppe believes the best form of govt is monarchy.

Every person who owns a house is not a monarch. You are making up definitions.
 
That's always been part of American politics.

Follow the money and you'll see where all our problems lie.

Yes, that's why I consider it the root of our problems. People want to use violence to impose their choices on others.
 
Did I miss the part of the OP where these poll results were linked to?

Nope. I did not include any. They occurred during the original NSA secret monitoring revelations. I assumed them to be common knowledge. I still do. Tuff nuggies.
 
Yes, that's why I consider it the root of our problems. People want to use violence to impose their choices on others.

The system is inherently violent, and has been from day one. The problem is that our government does not control the financial system, private entities do.

Violence is a symptom of a corrupt system, it's not the root of the problem. America has always been partisan, but our constituents are less cooperatve now that their pockets are being lined with obscene amounts of private money.
 
Last edited:
Every person who owns a house is not a monarch. You are making up definitions.

Many people owned houses under monarchies. The issue is not capital (like in houses), but land. A person oppressed under a private government is no different than a person oppressed under a public government.
 
Back
Top Bottom