Guest Commentary – One Argument To Abolish The Political Party System In The U.S.A.

guest-commentarySo here we are again on another Friday night at Stand Up For America. And we all know that we have turned Friday nights into guest commentary nights! I have to say that I really do enjoy the different articles that I get from people. They are well thought out and often have a different take on the issue than the one that I would have provided. When I did the first commentary with BlackFlag, I was skeptical about having others having such a voice on what was “my” site. What I have realized since is that this is not my site at all. It belongs to all of you. I post an article and you all have discussions. I get into them when I can, but the site is really about all of us learning, debating, compromising, and hearing differing opinions.

And because the site is as much yours as it is mine, there is no reason that I could see that the guest commentaries should not continue, and that is why I decided that every Friday night would be a guest post. Thus far we have seen some brilliant thoughts. And this week is no different. My only hope is that I will soon start to see some of the liberal folks on the site present some articles as well. They add so much to the discussion and I think they have, for the most part, debated well, and with respect. Because of this I am eager to see some articles from their perspective. It will help us all to better understand their positions and their point of view.

But tonight it is not a liberal that we turn the stage over to, but instead G.A. Rowe. G.A. has been a regular contributor to the discussions here at Stand Up For America. For anyone who doesn’t know, he also has a blog site that you can visit at:  ROWEVINGS by G.A.Rowe

This article will eventually be posted on his site as well. With no further delay:

Tonight’s Guest Commentary from G.A. Rowe

partisan-boxing-cartoonIn a free society, be it Democratic or Republic, what role does a political party have?

To provide a person a financial base for a political campaign for public office, and to also provide an accepted political platform to which a candidate could proclaim allegiance to.


Looking at only what we see in this modern world of ours, this rapid and far flung communication tool called the Internet, it would seem that anyone who would desire to aspire to any political office could get their point of view out to the general public in a timely and economic fashion. So why would we need a political party to get that word out if an individual could do just that without incurring the astronomical costs of commercializing oneself in a political ad?

My point reaches further than just the above simplification. I believe that political parties were originally developed to bring like minded folks together in a common cause in which to influence the minds of those who do not share their beliefs. That sure isn’t the case in today’s political world. As we can plainly see, our two main political parties have done much more harm than good, and some might even argue that they have never done any good.

I believe that there is a growing trend toward what was originally termed “the popular vote”, and I keep hearing from friends and relatives that none of the politicians who have made the national scene truly reflect their political views because of the political party that they belong to.

I also hear the complaint that when the majority votes some measure or other in, then the courts decide that this measure is “unconstitutional” and throw it out people ask what does their vote count for if one judge can negate what thousands of people actually voted for.

So that brings me back to what are political parties good for? It seems that now we are not in control of our country as our founders intended us to be. It seems that once elected our politicians head off in whatever direction that the political party demands that they do. I believe that this is due to the astronomical costs of running a campaign, be it local, state or on a national level.

This last national campaign raised enormous amounts of money for the candidates. It afforded them to scoot around the country in privately chartered large passenger jets, hold enormous rallies replete with professionally made signs and Hollywood type props, produce mega-movie style commercials, and to even run a very long informercial on literally every television network (cable and satellite included) in a prime time coverage slot nationwide.

And now we are protesting the winner’s seemingly uncaring and oblivious mega-spending of our tax money with a nationwide grassroots style tea party? Just what did we expect from him after that lavish two year donation funded campaign run? Why did we expect that we elected a penny pincher after that Hollywood inspired spending spree that he was on? But I am getting off topic here, I shall save this for another time.

decafOkay, after a cup of decaff or two, I am back on track.

In many recent elections the talking heads on the boob tube have brought up that either one candidate or another had “won the popular vote” but lost the “electoral vote”. More and more voters are asking why did their vote not count in the long run?

I will leave the explanations of what the electoral college is to those who have more of an understanding of that illogical mess than I have been able to muster. (an acquaintance who has a degree in political science tried in vain for three weeks to get my befuddled brain to comprehend such abstract notions as the electoral college and how that can determine a candidates winning or losing an election without regard to the actual number of votes that candidate received) Lets just say that in that abstract reflection that I am numerically challenged. I suppose that in keeping with the evidence, I have no understanding whatsoever of Picasso Paintings either.

So we are back to square one. If a candidate says one thing, and his political party say another thing . . . . . Who are we to believe? And once elected, did our vote count, or does the candidate march in lock step to the dictates of his political party who provided him with all this lavish luxury during his campaign?

We have also heard of late the evils of lobbyists who coerce the politician into supporting or not supporting legislation that he is hired to influence. And with all this supposedly outside influence, then a candidate or politician has no other choice but to follow the dictates of their political party platform.

Or not.

Before I go any further let me say one small thing here. In no way shape or form do I consider myself an intellectual. Yes, I have an extended education. But as I have said before, I am numerically challenged and as a result of that little problem I do not have any degrees. Period. I have had one supervisor tell me that he has never before met anyone with so many college credits and classes under his belt without obtaining a degree in his entire life.

So, not being an “intellectual”, I shall not waste my time in trying to quote some philosopher or other in trying to get my argument across. My sole purpose is to get those who read these words to engage their brains and think.

I will say this, though. I believe that our first President, George Washington, was a man whose intelligence far outstripped anyone else in his time period (I think Jefferson and Madison could keep up with him, USW). I also believe that he was way ahead of his time when he said that he did not believe that political parties would be beneficial to his emerging new country.

Most of the mess that we find ourselves in today, I believe, is due solely to the adverse effect that political parties have had on this country of ours. We do not need them.

What we need is an election system that honestly pits one candidates honest beliefs against another candidates honest belief.

Dump that illogical mess called the electoral college and let the majority decide who gets the job. Then hold that employee to his campaign statements.

Works for me.

But then, that is just my humble opinion.


  1. I figure I will be the first to offer up a thought on this. As I was reading G.A.’s article I was in full agreement that the parties have undermined what the campaign was about anyway. They simply follow lock step with whatever their party says anyway. I do understand the electoral college process and the reason for not having the popular vote be the way it goes. I would be all for eliminating the two parties. But I would be concerned with the free-for-all that a campaign would be at that point.

    First, there would be so many candidates that it would become confusing. We would have 15 different nuances of conservative and 15 different nuances of liberal, and another 30 that were neither. Americans wouldn’t have time to even hear all the different platforms and ideas. The percentage of “educated voters” would go from small to miniscule.

    Any candidate with money would hold a definitive edge as they would have the ability to get their message out to the people better than the candidate who is the best for the country.

    • Agree with you about the number of candidates, USW. RE: money though, isn’t that already the case? Look who just bought himself a nice White House.

      • George Soros bought it for him Mom.

        • Absolutely.

          • Revolution2010 says:

            First, let me say I love G.A.’s stuff and agree with him on most things.
            While I agree that the political parties have done the most to ruin the system, I am not sure how we can get off the gerbil wheel. The problem that I see, and trust me when I say I have researched it, is there is the possibility that supporting a third major party (like the Libertarian Party) would solve some of the issues, though I think we do need to band together in fighting for what the country needs.
            The next election is going to be a real nail biter. The Republicans are in the most frightening place in that they stand to lose a large piece of their constituency to the Lib Party. The Libs are SERIOUS fiscal conservatives and that is something the Reps have fallen down on in ridiculous fashion. Most people who consider themselves on the libertarian edge have a problem committing to the legalizing drugs proposition. It seems to be that Pandora’s box that people are curious what would happen if it were opened but cannot quite come to the decision that it would be a good idea. If the party is split it leaves the arena open for the Democrats to continue their march to socialism… so where does that leave us?
            The other point that some are making and I TOTALLY disagree with is that there would be many candidates. I can assure you, there would not. Everyone wants to tell his or her politicians what to do, but no one actually wants the job! It sucks… you try and vote once for 160,000 people and see how well you do. The hours are insane, the pay is ok and the aftermath must be quite awful! I can only think that many of these people who went in originally had good intentions and I am quite sure the incessant bemoaning of every vote they cast must wear on the best of men. That being said, most of these people already have money. Do they do it for the power? What pushes them to run for office and what makes them fall in step with just 2 parties once they are in? The games that are played by the ruling class are like the unsolvable puzzle; you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. No one wants the job, and no more people would run for it if the party system ended tomorrow.

            • USWeapon says:


              I answered this post below as #16. As these posts squeeze to the right, we run out of room so it will give room to the discussion.

  2. Black Flag says:

    You are indeed correct, GA, that the root of the political process – at its founding – was to pit two, almost opposite, points of view for the common man to hear and align.

    As time went by into our modern era, it was discovered that a ‘centralist’ point of view bracketed ‘most’ of the voter opinions. All one needed to do was extend his own position with ‘numerous’ issues with the most diverse opinion on them.

    With this strategy, one did a ‘shotgun’ – hit some part of everyone’s target. You may not agree with Poly-tick A on issue “B”, but he was close enough on issue “A” for you to vote for him.

    (P.J. O’rouke – definition: Poly-tick-ian:

    Poly = many
    tick = blood sucking parasite)

    Thus the modern political party system is actually a two-horse race, with both horses on the same team – they can’t lose.

    So why vote? The outcome (other than shirt color) is already preordained.

    • Ah, BF, I saw you at Lake Havasu on the 15th . . . posted the photo on my website 😉

      Its gonna be afew weeks til I get all the wrinkles out of my next series – a little more refined and purposeful than the first – on re-forming the arena at Washington DC.

      You asked “So why vote? The outcome (other than shirt color) is already preordained.”

      I give you Somalia. Now THAT is Anarchy personified. If you ignore government, and it just goes away, that is what you will end up with. Nothing but a bunch of petty Hitlers with some pretty sophisticated war-toys sending little kids out to wreak havoc on their surroundings. Yeah, that is the ideal way to live allright.

      Let’s re-form the entire governmental system, starting with getting rid of political party’s and let the candidates run on their own merits. Let the circus play out BEFORE they are elected, not after as it is now.

  3. Good Morning GA! Interesting concept and I agree with many of your comments that the party leads the candidate, the money, etc. but I can’t think through how elections would be handled. Can you expand on how you would address this?

    Much in the campaign/election cycles have gotten ridiculous and I would personally like to see the timeframe diminished. Two years of Presidential campaigning is way too much.

    Thanks for the article – have a great Saturday everyone!

    • Kathy,

      I will be expanding on that concept – reworking the election process – when I post that series on my site in the not so distant future. What really got me to thinking about it was the fiasco that gave Bush his first win (that just wouldn’t have happened that way with a strictly popular vote), and this last one that was drawn out over two years just put the icing on the cake for me. Just think if candidates were limited to a certain amount of funds and time to spend on a campaign, and of course something called prequalification. That is all you get for now, you will just have to wait for(as the late great Paul Harvey would say)”the rest of the story”.

  4. CWO2USNRet says:

    A few weeks ago someone here, don’t recall who, pointed me towards a very intriguing idea as concerns political parties, career politicians, and the House of Representatives. I would be very interested to read what many of you have to say about Get Out Of Our House:

    I intend to support the idea simply because it certainly couldn’t make matters worse and it has the potential, if successful, of shaking up the entire legislative branch. Given the current state of affairs that could only be a good thing. Give the idea some thought, it has potential.

    I’m out to enjoy the beautiful day here in the mid-Atlantic.


    • I just looked at that site, CWO.

      Unfortunately, it is just another political party – albeit with a twist. I have come to distrust ALL political party’s regardless of what they SAY they will do. Actions speak louder than words for me. What we have heard from all the parties is definitely NOT what they have been delivering for decades now.

      My idea of making a candidate run on their INDIVIDUAL merits, and not on a political party’s platform, just seems to me to be the best solution to that problem. Bush 43 said a lot of things I liked during his first campaign, but then went off on a real tangent(not sure if that is the right word) after 9/11.

      I know that I do not have all the answers, but I am determined to give some of them a try.

      • USWeapon says:

        So are you now saying that you will not throw your support behind the VLDG Party? Because we were counting on it. We only had Chris Dodd slightly beat as far as endorsements go. We can’t afford to lose any.

        • Black Flag says:

          Myself, sadly, no.

          As long as there exists a belief you can use violence on non-violent people, it will – like all before it – turn to pure evil someday.

      • CWO2USNRet says:

        GA, why do you say it would be another party? I see a collection of representatives with ideolgies spanning the spectrum, bound to their pre-election positions as voiced in the candidate questionnaire, and limited to two terms. The political bent of the GOOOH process founder is not involved in the candidate selection process.

  5. esomhillgazette says:

    Ahhh! My old friend G.A.. Like me, you’re pissed at what the political system has become. Exactly what you described above. With the amount of money spent on the campaign trail, it’s a wonder that McCain was even as close as he was. And there is no reason to expect that the next election won’t be a repeat of the last one. It is becoming a race to see who has the most money to put on the best dog and pony show. Every so often a candidate comes along who shouts and preaches about “hope and change” and “reform”. As BF says, “the outcome, other than shirt color”, is preordained. No wonder so many don’t bother to vote. Obama ran on those very slogans in his campaign and many, apparently VERY many, believed it. But, of course, he turned out to be the same old thing. Got to go to a Parkinson’s Walk. More later. Got to go.

    • As it turns out, a good many did not even bother to vote, thanks to the MSM! Obummer was their poster boy(no racist remark here, just fact!) from the gitgo, and they did nothing but tout him at every news broadcast (and almost completely ignore any one else) for the entire two years he was running. THAT has got to change!

      • esomhillgazette says:

        I don’t know the answer GA, I really don’t. I’ll have to think about this for awhile. You have some good ideas I think. They just need refining. I agree about Obutthead though. Somethings gotta give soon. I just hope it ain’t us!

  6. It’s been my experience that to really know what a candidate position is in relation to purpose,motive, agenda and political stance you need to research to find out who he is being funded by.Then you have to research again because most times his funding is coming from an organization with a name you associate with as being well founded when in reality it is a name to throw you off course.

    Example:The Tides foundation.This “Foundation” was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.

    Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no organization in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.

    The Tides Center’s Board Chairman is Wade Rathke, who is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. Rathke, a protege of the late George A. Wiley, serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union, and is the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

    Recent recipients of Tides Foundation grants include: the A.J. Muste Memorial Institute; the American Civil Liberties Union; the ACORN Institute; the Agape Foundation; Alliance For Justice; American Family Voices; the American Friends Service Committee; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; Amnesty International; the Border Action Network; the Brennan Center for Justice; Campaign for America’s Future; the Center for American Progress; the Center for Community Change; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Center for Reproductive Rights; Changemakers; the Children’s Defense Fund; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; the Council on American-Islamic Relations (as revealed in FrontpageMagazine); Democracy Now!; Earth Day Network; Earth Island Institute; Earthjustice; Environmental Defense; Environmental Media Services; the Environmental Working Group; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting; the Feminist Majority Foundation; Free Press; Funding Exchange; Global Exchange; Grantmakers Without Borders; Grassroots International; Greenpeace; Human Rights First; Human Rights Watch; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Institute for America’s Future; Institute for Policy Studies; Institute for Public Accuracy; the Israel Policy Forum; the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy; the Jane Addams Peace Association; the League of Conservation Voters; the League of United Latin American Citizens; the League of Women Voters; the Liberty Hill Foundation; MADRE; Medecins Sans Frontieres; Media Matters for America; Mercy Corps; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Mexico Solidarity Network; the Middle East Children’s Alliance; Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty; the National Council of Churches; the National Lawyers Guild; the National Network of Grantmakers; the National Organization for Women Foundation; the National Wildlife Federation; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Nature Conservancy (of California and of New York); the New Israel Fund; the New World Foundation; Nonviolent Peaceforce; the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Oxfam America; the Pacifica Foundation; Peace Action; the Peace Development Fund; People for the American Way; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Physicians for Social Responsibility; Planned Parenthood; the Ploughshares Fund; Population Connection; the Progress Unity Fund; Project Vote; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Rainforest Action Network; the Rainforest Alliance; the Rockefeller Family Fund; the Ruckus Society; the Sentencing Project; September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows; the Sierra Club; the Shefa Fund; Sojourners; the Threshold Foundation; TrueMajority Action; Trust for Public Land; the Union of Concerned Scientists; USAction; Veterans For Peace; Waterkeeper Alliance; the Wilderness Society; Witness For Peace; Women’s Action for New Directions; and the World Wildlife Fund.

    Now if you look at the names of these organizations they seem harmless and you may be under the impression they are out to do the world good and would be in your best interest to support them.Take the American Civil Liberties Union for example.Why on earth would a communist founder call it that except to mislead the people?There has been an intelligent movement for decades to undermine the American way of Capitalism.

    There are ten easy steps toward a progressive-socialist-Marxist civil society: change the popular consensus; destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores; transform the culture; install a radical Left mind-control; attain political power; impose strict control of the military and law enforcement; restrict freedom; socialize the economy; erase American sovereignty; and embrace a world without borders.

    If you research the organizations I have listed above you will see that they have played a part in manipulating those ten steps throughout their history of political power plays.

    The point of this post is that no matter what a candidate says their political party is; and since you believe the two main political parties in America have their set agendas and political stance: you have no way of knowing their true beliefs and political doctrine untill you research them yourself.

    • I am not trying to hijack the thread or anything but since I posted on researching candidates I had to post this article since it was one of the best I have read this year and pertains to researching a candidate.I apologize now if this seems out of key.I just can’t believe more media coverage wasn’t allocated to some of the scandals and information about this candidate.Guess its time to for me to research who is paying the bills for our national media to figure this one out.

    • Black Flag says:

      And what is so funny about that, Tex, is even after you do all that work….

      … the poly-tick will do whatever he wants. There is no obligation to follow anything he says, commits, promises, swears on his first born….

      The whole game is made for the people to spin their wheels all the while they believe they are going somewhere. It’s really a treadmill – all that work, and when you look up, the scenery hasn’t changed one bit.

      • Pay attention, BF, WE THE PEOPLE are making the scenery change. Not by ignoring it, either!

        • Black Flag says:

          Nah, the PEOPLE, the masses, are not your allies.

          Sorry, EA, but the system will not allow it – the PEOPLE are too beholden to the system to change it.

    • T for Texas,
      Great post! If we had real reporters, this would be THE prime time story during an election. And Chris Dodd/Barney Franks would not be in power.

    • Do not apologize, Tex, I for one think that you would have made one heckuva good cop!

      Thank you for a great post! I hope you don’t mind if I repost it at some time in the future on my blog?

      • I worked in the criminal justice system for six years already.Had enough of that G.A.The field doesn’t pay enough to make it in these times when raising a family.The stress level of your life is ridiculous.Adrenaline rush is addictive but after a couple years you become aclimized to those altercations and then the rush is no longer there.

        Yeah you can post whatever you want G.A. this is still a free country for now! =)

        • You are so right about the adrenalin rush and the stress levels. For me it was the everlasting inner feeling I got from removing some human predator from the street. There is an almost sinful pleasure in hearing that cell door slam shut on a garbage bag(for lack of a better word) at the end of the day 😉

          The callousness that affects your personality does leave a permanent mark, though, that just never goes away.

          Thanks for the permission, and this will remain a free country if I have anything to say about it!

  7. G.A.: Let me explain why the electoral college is a good thing without using any numbers.

    They count the vote in all the major metropolitan areas of the USA and the election is over. The rest of us don’t count because they are the majority.

    Think about your own states. Which area controls the results of the entire state? In Montana it is basically 3 cities. In Idaho it is one city for one house seat and two for the other. In Nevada Clark County, Las Vegas, rules the State.

    One of the most telling outcomes of last election was a county map of the USA showing which Pres candidate won the county. Mr Obama’s victory in many east coast states was in counties centered around the big cites. Pennsylvania is a classic example.

    I have not been able to find those maps on the net lately so maybe BF or someone else could post a connection.

    Parties have become a major problem. They essentially control the options from the very beginning as the party power brokers recruit the candidates and help them through primaries.

    US: Regarding a free for all election, didn’t we kind of have that in both primaries for Pres this last time? I for one enjoyed it. The problem wasn’t the number but the way the media handled the whole thing, especially the debates. Someone needs to take the debates away from the MM so we start getting meaningful questions and real debate. Make these folks think on their feet and show us their stuff.

    A clear and cool morning here under the big sky.
    Shaping up to be a great day.

    • JAC, this might be what you are thinking of. Page down to see color coding by county. c

      • esomhillgazette says:

        Looking at those maps just pissed me off worse! There has to be a better way than this for Presidential Elections.

    • JAC,

      You said; “The problem wasn’t the number but the way the media handled the whole thing, especially the debates.”

      That is one of the things that I have a problem with – our very much biased news media! And that is something that I cannot seem to get a handle on how to correct it, except by serious use of the free internet – which could be a potential time bomb of the future, considering that a ten year old knows much more about manipulative programming than I ever will!

    • Revolution2010 says:

      G.A. and JAC,
      What do you think the outcome would be if they would break up the electoral college so that the state is not a “winner take all situation? It would seem to post a much more relevant and true picture of who the country was voting for. Currently I believe there are only 2 states that separate their EC votes. If all states went to that, what would the outcome be… I might have to go look at that map and see if I can tally it myself and if the outcome would have been different. I am not sure it is worth my time since I don’t think they will change over because we think it is a good idea.

  8. A good article, G.A.

    Had to research a bit. I remember one party being formed, and the other came to be as the only way to organize and oppose them. The them being the Federalist, started by Hamlinton, who wanted a strong government with a central bank. He organized a group of supporters, mostly urban, while Washington was president.
    The Whigs were started by Jefferson & Madison to oppose their agenda.

    With that little bit of history, I believe the political parties formed to let a group of like minded individuals force their view on others. Deal making and back scratching, and self interest.

    Our elected officials are supposed to represent their districts,
    but you hear them explain away supporting one thing to gain support for something the district would desire.

    And there we have seen one thing both parties are good at, working their deals to get the most out of the taxpayers who elected them.

    So how do we break this cycle? GOOOH might be an answer. I am a member and hope it will be successful. USW might contact the founder for guest commentary, or feature some of his newsletters.
    I am also drawn to the Libertarian Party, but feel another party, in the long run, would end being more of the same.

    I believe the internet is likely to play a greater role in elections. Obama used it to great effect. This is the one source of information not controlled by MSM. The problem is there is a huge number of political blogs. To be effective, they will have to organize to a degree.

    USW points out a free-for-all campaign would result in 15 different flavors of liberal or conservative. There are many “Match Your Candidate” sites. We need one that all conservative sites have a link to and endorse. That site would need to ask questions on all major issues(GOOOH has a questionnaire worth reading), and allow us to vote for who we like. This would end with a small group of candidates that could then debate online.
    The intention of this is to generate enough attention to put this candidate on an equal footing with the party candidates. MSM has tried to ignore the tea parties, and will likely suffer for it, as they loose credibility.

    • I agree that the MSM has literally shot themselves in the foot over the tea parties!

      However, please look at my note to JAC, above in #9, about how the candidates might be able to get their word out without the use of MSM and political party’s. I realize that this Internet is a fairly new phenom and that it has soooo much potential to educate and influence a vast number of people, not just locally, but over the entire planet.

      We are holding in our hands the greatest communication tool since the invention of the printing press.

  9. Black Flag says:

    Now THAT is Anarchy personified

    It was! Improvements AFTER the government failed….

    But you must be careful, GA, with such weak examples.

    I may have to point to, oh,

    NAZI Germany
    MAO China
    STALINIST Russia

    …for examples of government. 😉 300 Million dead, killed by their own goverment in the 20th century is a powerful example of what government really means…

    • Black Flag says:

      And, further about Somalia, I’ve posted enough evidence last thread or so about the success of Somalia after the fall of government.

      However, ignore it at your pleasure, of course. Facts rarely win over dogma.

      • No dogma here. Just plain fact.

        There is no government to speak of in Somalia.

        There is no peace in Somalia.

        There is no law in Somalia.

        There is no safety in Somalia.

        All you have there is nothing but individual “warlords” controlling, by use of deadly force, small areas of populations for their own personal desires.

        That is nothing but pure chaos, and that is no way for humans to live.

        • Black Flag says:

          Sorry, GA.

          As I said in rebuke to USWep, if you chose to ignore the history of Somalia, then you can prove anything about it.

          There is no peace in Somalia as Ethopia – backed by the USA – invaded the country, and ripped it to shreds. This is not anarchy – but a vivid example of government in action – inflicting massive violence upon a people.

          By the act of the US government and others, the society of Somalia has been ripped to shreds.

          To bizarrely come back and claim this is “anarchy” is perverse.

          It is a direct example of the evils of government.

          • USWeapon says:

            On the contrary BF, regardless of how Somalia got there or who is responsible for ripping the country to shreds, the fact remain that there is no government to speak of and it is therefore anarchy.

            Somalia is in anarchy, and that is not good, and we don’t want our country to operate like Somalia. That is argument #1.

            Somalia is in the place it is because of many different factors, only one of which is the US influence there. That is argument #2

            Do not confuse the debate by mixing those two arguments together. Arguing that Somalia and the anarchy that is there is not bad by providing a history of how they got there is not accurate. We can debate how they got there. And we can debate whether it is good that they are there now. But those two debates do not go together so don’t try to mesh them. It confuses the issue. Because government did action “A” and it was bad, is not a valid argument as to why no government there is now good, because it obviously is not.

          • Black Flag says:

            Rip a country apart by direct actions of government upon the people, and then use that as an argument against anarchy.


  10. Very insightful GA, thank you! I have always wondered as well regarding this two party system. I’m not an intellectual either but my gut knows right from wrong. It appears that much of the political dialogue we hear is basically the same coming from both sides. Now that one side has moved decidedly left and the rest of us are still more conservative and traditional, there must be a common ground that many Dems and Repubs can share equally. The Tea Parties showed that that was very evident, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents all got together to show their distrust of big government and spending that has gotten out of control.

    There must be many who voted Democratic, seeking change, who are now wondering why they voted the way they did. We have seen this since the last election was finalized and the direction our country is headed. We have seen one appointee after another faced with either moral or ethical issues which doesn’t set a good precedent for people who are supposedly running our government. The Republicans have been weak as well, with their lack of organization and direction. John McCain was very weak in his bid for the White House. I must say, he probably got many of his votes because of his running mate because he showed no fire that he was so well known for. I have the utmost respect for the man but he did not take the reins as he should have and was very lackluster in his debates and overall demeanor.

    One would think that there would be a common denominator, a base for politicians from both sides to form a new type of coalition or party with the main focus to serve their constituents in a more truthful and honorable way. Perhaps I’m being either too naive or just plain dumb to think such a thing, but with the problems our country is facing, we need responsibility and accountibility, not idle promises and lame excuses. We heard that enough during the campaign with woulda, shoulda, coulda and lots of maybes. I still find it difficult to comprehend that someone running for the highest office in the land could not have been more precise and lay out a set plan instead of just hypothesizing and preaching “change”. Change what? He wants to change our country from being the best to something else? I’m sure many of us were very happy with our lives and country until Congress became under the control of the Democrats in 2006. Perhaps that is what the Democrats wanted to do, make our financial system fail, then blame the Bush administration and then shoo in their candidate. Now look, we are giving our interrogation methods to the enemy, reducing our nuclear deterrent, kissing butt to the one of the most undesirable people in South America, releasing terrorists back into society, calling our country arrogant, bowing to Kings but not Queens and appointing radicals to be a watchdog in the defense department and CIA. What the hell is happening right under our noses? It sure is change alright, not something that makes me feel good about our country and direction.

    As for the electoral college, it appears to be one huge incomprehensible logarithm to me. A popular vote would be the way to go, you either make it or don’t. Candidates should have the same amount of money to do their campaign, that way one cannot buy an election, unless of course you’re giving away free cigarettes so they’ll vote for your candidate, an acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree, does it?

  11. Black Flag says:

    As I’ve asked before, numerous of times, about you reforming government.

    On what moral basis do you believe you can reform government?

    What difference does it make whether we elect a man to rule over us based on his party, the color of his hair, his “merit” (what ever that is), or how popular he is? He is ruling over you. You are allowing him to use violence to enforce edicts on non-violent people.

    The core of government is evil. No matter what ‘reformation’ is wrapped around evil – evil will be the result.

    We have been reforming government for 10,000 years – as Kent would say, Time’s UP!

    • Flag,
      “On what moral basis”? How about “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. That a government formed by or forefathers, that was to be limited, has grown into a overwhelming giant that treats our “rights” as a gift from government, not as our due as citizens.

      I feel we need a government. I feel it needs to be changed to a smaller, less intrusive form, and allows more individual liberties. I feel this can only happen by electing people with a similar view and goal.

      VDLG, the Very Damn Little Government party.
      Black Flag for president!

    • Without some form of government we would have anarchy.That anarchy would entail the sole principal of survival of the fittest.Survival of the fittest would lead to people banding together for protection and to survive.Those bands would have a set doctrine of laws to hold their band together and promote their survival.Therefore no more anarchy.

      I worked for the Texas Department of Corrections for six years while going to college off and on, worked my way up through the ranks and promoted to Lieutenant before I changed careers and believe me when I say this BF: there is the law of survival of the fittest in the penitentiary but it is not the only law. Gangs form as a basis for mini govt.There will never be true anarchy with humankind, it is against our very nature.

      • I agree. Anarchy can only function as a temporary form of government, eventually leading to an Oligarchy. With true anarchy there can be no freedom. Even animals form crude forms of government within their grouping structures. It is the nature of the beast.

        • Black Flag says:

          You confuse leadership with rulers.

          You confuse animals vs human intelligence.

          • Yeah, well, I grew up around animals and as far as I can tell, they were all smarter than Barney Frank.

          • Leadership is a virtue beholden to a ruling class.You have leaders that have believers that … follow!

            Our animalistic hormones sometimes over-ride our human intelligence though ehh… BlackFlag?We are after all just carbon based life like any other living creature on this planet.Essentially an animal.

    • BF;

      “On what moral basis do you believe you can reform government?” – IT IS RE-FORM NOT REFORM (TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT WORDS HERE!)

      Again, and this time pay attention!

      We The People . . . NOT JUST ONE PERSON!



      I know that only anarchy -i.e. complete chaos – is the only thing that you believe in, but you need to understand that YOU are not a majority here, that your definition of MORALITY is far from what the rest of humanity believes MORALITY is defined as.

      I understand your feelings about all of this, but I ask you to try to understand our feelings also. We think as individuals, yet we act as a group of like minded(essentially not like thinking) individuals when we form these entities called governments. Here in this country, we have formed an entity called government in a shape that we were supposedly able to control. Somehow, through a long period of apathy perhaps, we allowed that entity to get out of control and now we are trying to figure out how to put it back under control in a manner that should we become apathetic will not get too far out of control again.

      Asking about our moral thinking is irrelevant, to say the least, and intentionally diversionary to say the most.

      • Revolution2010 says:

        I agree with G.A. I agree that while BF has some good points, I simply do not trust that we will not fall inot the same plight as any other governmentless nation. Just as you BF continue to tout that government has never survived for long periods, anarchy has also never survived for long periods… and anarchy just plain scares me more.

      • esomhillgazette says:

        BF, I’m going to reply to you on G.A.’s post because I want to tell you what anarchy would do for MY COMMUNITY. Not anyone else’s, just mine. No Government and no Law would mean complete and utter devastation here as my town and Community ripped itself apart. Forget the fact that folks should do the right thing because it is the right, moral thing to do. Most people just ain’t that way. Someone would try to take over. Someone would object to that person taking over on the grounds that they were just as good as that person and THEY should be the MAN! And so on and so on until you would see bloodshed as these idiots fought for power.

        Then you have the normal, everyday folks who just want to live their lives in freedom. You know BF, our kind of folks. Say one of those folks is me and my family.
        1. If it’s anarchy, nobody’s going to rule or have power over me unless they first kill me and then have power over my dead ass!
        2. If it’s Lawless I’m gonna be a whole lot less trusting of folks around me. This is purely out of self defense because the Law is the only thing keeping them in check. Barely!
        3. The criminal element around here would have a crime orgy! There would be no control to stop them so they could do whatever they could get away with. Admittedly, where I live a lot of them would die quick, fast, and in a hurry because I live in the Sticks where “All God’s Chillun’s Got Guns, and the will to use them”. But also a lot of innocents would die.
        4. So basically we would have the Old Wild West around here until some kind of order was restored OR all the Bad Guys were dead. Along with a lot of the Good Guys with them.

        So as much as your idea of Anarchy sounds appealing when YOU say it, I think I’ll stick with G.A. and USW and try to fix the problem. It may not be possible. It may already be too late. But I’m still going to try. If that doesn’t work, it looks to me like we’ll be trying your way sooner or later anyway!

        Luck to you Buddy!

  12. TexasChem says:

    In my opinion it will be senseless to think we would ever have the right representation in congress without some type of reform to some very abused forms of applied political coercion.

    Political coercion these days is just an extension of coercion for economic ends.I just read an article today that stated Barney Franks has all of his 401k invested in Massachusets municipal funds and that he is proposing for the federal government to insure state municipal bonds.Hmmm.

    Now I ask you what the implications would be for the federal government to take over a bankrupt state?That is what would happen if the municipal bonds were forfeited.Black Flag just posted a link to an article stating that municipal bonds were having horrible credit ratings.Hmmmm.

    George Soros is gloating over the worlds economic recession right now because he is making BILLIONS off of Hedge funds.This man is partly responsible for this recession and says himself this has been the culmination of his lifes works.Sick bastard.Since 1979 or so he has given 5 billion towards this end through his so called “philanthropic” endeavors.Which amount to these agendas:

    }promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

    }promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

    }opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

    }depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

    }promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

    }promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

    }promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

    }defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

    }financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

    }advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

    }opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

    }promoting socialized medicine in the United States

    }promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”

    }bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

    }promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

    }promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand

    }advocating stricter gun-control measures

    }advocating the legalization of marijuana

    Don’t believe me?Research the “Open Society Institute” and see what organizations they have funded and what those organizations agendas are and what they have accomplished.

    Ethics commitees are supposed to investigate matters of political donations, campaign moneys usages and the like but when those commitees are essentially formed who calls the shots for them?Their political donaters.Corruption has become the mainstay of our government.Favors owing favors to cover more favors.

    Are the American people to blaim for the state of our government since we voted these losers into office or is it the people that have been manipulating the media, condeming religion[except Islam],re-educating our children, and yes coercion of our economy?

  13. Black Flag says:


    I worked for the Texas Department of Corrections….

    8) 8)
    Blink Blink…

    So, let me get this straight.

    You are using an example of a totally closed society that is under the complete and total control of a Police State (a prison) – the maximum extent of Government and political power and control that can possibly be applied upon human beings – controlling everything those human beings do, what they do, when they do it and how they do it – all under complete and total observation and no expectation of any privacy, all enforced by the use of and the threat of massive physical violence from the State.

    But you say, see, ANARCHY and see, WE CAN’T CONTROL THESE GUYS

    You are saying, that with the 100% of government power upon human beings, it creates the absolute perversion of society and its collapses into raging gangs.

    Blink 8) Blink 8)

    • TexasChem says:

      What I am saying is that they set up their own governing system within the system.It most definitely is not totally closed.Their freedom are extremely restricted but they still have rec time on the yard and in the dayrooms were they are allowed television privileges.Gyms to play ball and excercise.Do not make the mistake of saying that the state is always in control because it isn’t.If it were there would never be riots.The last farm I worked at we tear gassed or pepper sprayed a minimum of three times a week.Chow hall, rec yard or cell block.It made no difference any place you have mass movement the risk of the “state” losing control was there.

    • Black Flag says:

      You do realize how bizarre your post is….

      you admit the most total government control is futile….

      therefore, you want government….

      • BF,

        You need to spend some time in a prison, to experience what their little chaotic world is all about.

        I recommend that you apply for your states department of corrections, go through the training(if you can pass the psych eval, and that is a big IF) and spend at least six months at work before you run screaming into the night!

        I could NEVER have been a prison guard. I was good at catching them, but working around them in a captivity based environment? NO FREAKIN WAY!

        Prison guards have all my respect!

        Don’t pass judgment on them without knowing what it is that they do. I sent those guys and gals some really, and I do mean really, wacked-out weirdos!

        • Black Flag says:

          You only prove my point.

          The one place government is in full, complete, and absolute control over every aspect of what is human…

          … and it only fuels chaos.

  14. Black Flag says:

    G. A. Rowe
    April 18, 2009 at 5:49 pm


    So, since you didn’t answer the question I posed, means, you have no moral basis whatsoever.

    We The People . . . NOT JUST ONE PERSON!

    How many people do you need to raise their hands in the air for you to attack non-violent people?

    I’d like to know so I can judge the mob outside my doors to see if they are legitimate or not….


    But, if as a citizen, I do NOT AGREE WITH YOU… are you going to attack me?


    But I don’t agree – so where is your UNANIMOUSLY?

    How do you know the decision, however it is agreed, is moral?

    …because more than 2 voted for it? 12? 120? 1200? 1,200,000?

    What is your magic number???

    I know that only anarchy -i.e. complete chaos

    No, government is chaos.

    Any time someone believes they can solve human problems best by using violence on non-violent people can only cause chaos.

    – is the only thing that you believe in, but you need to understand that YOU are not a majority here, that your definition of MORALITY is far from what the rest of humanity believes MORALITY is defined as.

    I agree.

    The majority believe they have a right to attack people who, peacefully, do not believe as they do.

    I do not.

    I am minority.

    Asking about our moral thinking is irrelevant, to say the least, and intentionally diversionary to say the most.

    You believe, that as long as your group is big enough, you can use whatever means to justify whatever end you deem.

    That is evil, GA.

    • stop being diversionary.


      A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not chaos.

      Did you see that? Did you see that word? It was PEOPLE. Not INDIVIDUAL.

      I know that you, as an individual, will not comprehend that PEOPLE agree on a set of laws for everyone to abide by. That is because YOU want to make your own laws and force others to abide by your individually set laws. And that by using your diversionary language to confuse and misdirect others into your way of thinking, which is only for YOUR benefit, and not the benefit of all others, just you, you think that you can con your way into what it is that you want to just satisfy you and no one else.

      Now I understand, BF.

      You are a practicing con artist, not an anarchist. 😉

      I guess that once a cop, always a cop . . . 🙂

      • Black Flag says:

        Anarchy = No rulers.


        See WW2.
        See Iraq.
        See Afghanistan.etc.etc.

        But, the point is, you avoid my question.

        You are evading.

  15. To all of you who have read and posted here;

    I want to thank all of you for some very informative discussion. I learned a lot today, and I was once told that a day that you do not learn something is a wasted day – So this day was far from wasted.

    BF, since you and I will NEVER agree on your brand of the falsehood that you term morality, lets call this an impasse. Let it be known that you believe in anarchy and I do not. Moral behavior is something that the majority believe what is right and just – whereas you believe that moral behavior should be left up to the individual in his own interpretation to serve his own whim of the moment. To me, that is chaos . . . To you that is bliss.

    Again, thank you all, and to all a good night.


  16. USWeapon says:

    Revolution 2010 said above: The other point that some are making and I TOTALLY disagree with is that there would be many candidates. I can assure you, there would not. Everyone wants to tell his or her politicians what to do, but no one actually wants the job! It sucks… you try and vote once for 160,000 people and see how well you do. The hours are insane, the pay is ok and the aftermath must be quite awful! I can only think that many of these people who went in originally had good intentions and I am quite sure the incessant bemoaning of every vote they cast must wear on the best of men. That being said, most of these people already have money. Do they do it for the power? What pushes them to run for office and what makes them fall in step with just 2 parties once they are in? The games that are played by the ruling class are like the unsolvable puzzle; you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. No one wants the job, and no more people would run for it if the party system ended tomorrow.

    I am wondering what you are basing this on other than the fact that many people are lazy and want politicians to do the work. We are now operating on the two party system. It takes massive work to get on the ballot, and this time in most states we saw 3 candidates (Obama, McCain, and Bob Barr from Libertarian Party). However, in the 2008 Election we saw the following:

    9 Candidates for the Democratic Nomination (Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Kucinic, Biden, Gravel, Dodd, Vilsack)

    12 Candidates for the Republicans (McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Paul, Huckabee, Thomson, Hunter, Keyes, Brownback, Gilmore,Tankredo, Thompson)

    And then there were the third party candidates that mathematically were eligible to win (meaning they were on enough ballots to gain half electoral votes):
    Nader – Independent
    Barr – Libertarian
    Baldwin – Constitution
    McKinney – Green
    Moore – Socialist

    And the other 3rd party candidates who actually received votes in more than one state, but could not have garnered enough electoral votes to win:
    Calero _ Socialist Workers Party
    La Riva – Party for Socialism and Liberation
    Jay – Boston Tea
    Stevens – Objectivist
    Amondson – Prohibition
    Allen – HeartQuake

    And the other third party candidates that only received votes in one state:
    Duncan – Independent
    Polacheck – New Party
    McEnulty – New American Independent
    Wamboldt – We the People
    Boss – Vote Here Party
    Phillies – No Party (NH)
    Weill – Reform
    Lyttle – US Pacifist

    And the Others:
    Donald K. Allen/Christopher D. Borcik (Ohio, Maryland)
    Jose M. Aparicio (Maryland)
    Lawson Bone (Indiana, Maryland, and Utah)
    Jeff Boss/Andrea Marie Psoras (Vote Here—New Jersey)
    Ted Brown, Sr. (Maryland)
    Santa Claus (West Virginia)
    James D. Criveau (Maryland)
    Richard Duncan/Ricky Johnson (Ohio)
    Michael Faith (Indiana)
    James R. Germalic/Martin Wishnatsky (Ohio)
    Mark Graham (Utah)
    Leonard Habermehl (Kentucky)
    RaeDeen R. Heupel (California, Maryland)
    Thaddaus Hill/Gordon F. Bailey (Texas)
    Ronald Hobbs (Maryland and Utah)
    Yonyuth Hongsakaphadana (New Hampshire)
    Keith Judd (Kentucky and Maryland)
    Lou Kujawski (Indiana)
    Frank Moore/Susan Block (California, Maryland, and Utah)
    Kevin Mottus (Indiana)
    Gary Nettles/Brad Krones (Florida)
    John Plemons (Indiana)
    Platt Robertson/Scott Falls (Ohio)
    Joe Schriner/Dale Way (Maryland and Ohio)
    David John Sponheim (Maryland)
    Lynne A. Starr (Maryland)
    Blaine Taylor (Maryland)
    Lanakila Washington (Humanistic Party—New York)
    Jerry White/Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality—New York)

    And that leaves out our own Kent McManigal. I think that if the two party system were eliminated and all of these folks were given ballot access, it would create chaos at the booths.

  17. Has anyone thought about how the fiscal conservative vote would be split with no hope to evict the democrats from office with more than two political parties?I am not saying I agree with the two party system we now have but, until we can get enough like minded people “on the same page” it will be difficult to turn things around from the current socialistic movement.Any realistic constructive ideas to solve this dilemma?

    • Another obstacle will be the media in upcoming elections.This is blatantly obvious from last elections coverage and the coverage of our Tea Parties.
      I apply a system of logistical open thought when troubleshooting equipment failures at work and also try to apply it in every day life with problems that need solving.

      Identify possible solutons.
      Predict possible outcomes, including means of each solution.
      Decide which solution based on best possible outcome to implement.
      Execute that solution with means available.

      Simple I know but it works.

  18. Black Flag says:

    What you are saying, Rev, is that you do not trust freedom, and that freedom ‘scares you’.

    Thus, you are more than willing to suffer an entity imposing upon your non-violent actions with threats and actions of massive violence so that you don’t have to suffer freedom.

    As far as anarchist societies surviving:

    In the case of Medieval Iceland, it was global cooling; simply wiped out the colony. But this is not a problem of anarchy;

    -the first colonists to North America were wiped out too, and they formed a typical government. The second series almost got wiped out again, due to the socialist system of government that they built – and saved themselves when they reverted to anarchy.

    Same as post-Roman Europe – the global cooling changed society top to bottom. But this effect is not anarchy as an issue, but what is known as Geopolitical effect.

    Any time a massive geopolitical event occurs, the current paradigm is destroyed. And, importantly, it does not matter what paradigm currently is in operation. This is why our current times is so critical – we are entering a global, geopolitical event – and the current paradigms will not survive.

    Geopolitical events are one (or more concurrently) of four major things:
    Political Failure

    Global Cooling – paradigm change – result: feudal system and the Dark Ages
    Black Death – paradigm change – result: Renaissance
    Long Bow – paradigm change – result: human rights
    Revolutionary war – paradigm change – result: global explosion of democracy
    Fall of Rome – paradigm change – result: European dissolution and rise of city states

    This upcoming paradigm will leverage technology as never before.

    Remember, I’m not saying that everyone will accept this new paradigm. Indeed, the vast majority will not.

    However, the power of the State will be muted. There will be a number of people able, if they will it, to move outside the grasp of government and its evil violent power.

    Those that remain will most certainly feed on themselves – and slowly dissolve.

  19. Black Flag says:


    No Government and no Law ….

    Who is saying no law?

    That is precisely the question I level at GA is the same to you.

    What is the moral basis of your law?

  20. Black Flag says:


    BF, since you and I will NEVER agree on your brand of the falsehood that you term morality, lets call this an impasse.

    You have yet to offer any discussion whatsoever on morality – so claiming some ‘falsehood’ is perverse. You have offered nothing to compare to evaluate this at all.

    Your statement is divisive. My ‘brand’ is freedom. For you to never agree to that most certainly is disturbing.

    Let it be known that you believe in anarchy and I do not.

    I believe no man has a right to rule over me.

    You believe the opposite.

    Moral behavior is something that the majority believe what is right and just –

    So, answer this, GA.

    If the Majority demands that Jews were Stars on their shirts – their property can be seized at will – they can be imprisoned at will — you see this is moral?

    Remember, the majority voted for this exact scenario

    whereas you believe that moral behavior should be left up to the individual in his own interpretation to serve his own whim of the moment. To me, that is chaos . . . To you that is bliss.

    It is from the individual that all rights and powers and morals derive.

    Where do you think they come from?

    • BF,

      “Where do you think they come from?”

      I have said this before –

      “Moral behavior is something that the majority believe what is right and just”

      “I know that you, as an individual, will not comprehend that PEOPLE agree on a set of laws for everyone to abide by.”

      “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is not chaos.”

      When people group together, either in cities, counties, states, or countries, and they all agree to a set of laws and standards of moral behavior . . .

      But then I am sounding like a broken record here. Therefore I admit that YOU have absolutely no comprehension of any ideas that are not self serving to YOUR brand of what is just . . . I do understand that YOU only want what it is that YOU want irregardless of what the group around you (city, county, state, country) have agreed to abide by. Because that agreement does not give YOU the right to disregard what the rest of those around you deem as legal, just and moral.

      End of argument. Why? Because YOU want only the result that YOU want, irregardless of any one else having an opinion.

      Read the following;

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      “Appropriate” redirects here. For other uses, see Appropriation.

      Normative · Descriptive
      Virtue ethics
      Ethics of care
      Good and evil · Morality

      Bio-ethics · Cyberethics ·
      Neuroethics · Medical
      Engineering · Environmental
      Human rights · Animal rights
      Legal · Media
      Business · Marketing
      Religion · War
      Core issues

      Justice · Value
      Right · Duty · Virtue
      Equality · Freedom · Trust
      Free will · Consent
      Moral responsibility
      Key thinkers

      Confucius · Mencius
      Plato · Aristotle · Aquinas
      Hume · Kant · Bentham · Mill
      Kierkegaard · Nietzsche
      Rawls · Parfit · Singer

      List of ethics topics
      List of ethicists
      This box: view • talk • edit

      Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) has three principal meanings.

      In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be “common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time.”

      In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this “prescriptive” sense of morality as opposed to the above described “descriptive” sort of sense, moral value judgments such as “murder is immoral” are made. To deny ‘morality’ in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral “truths” is rejected.[1]

      In its third usage, ‘morality’ is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2]

      Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral psychology).[3] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment, abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms “right” or “wrong”. Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society (cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is merely an expression of the speakers’ sentiments (emotivism); an implied imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism, often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths are known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.

      • I realize that this is a copy and paste, but I have run out of patience with BF’s singular minded argument. It just makes no sense to me.

        • Black Flag says:

          Simply, what right do you have to enforce your morals upon me?

          Pretty darn simple question, GA.

          • Because your morals are only for you. The morals I adhere to are those agreed upon by our group. Your morals are whatever you deem them to be without regard to what others may want.

            Therefore your morals are not only irrelevant, they are illegal by the laws that our group have agreed upon.

            • Black Flag says:

              So, you agree completly with what happened to the Jews in Germany.

              The laws and actions was agreed to, by a majority.

              Therefore, the Nazi’s – by your definition and in your mind – were moral.

    • USWeapon says:

      I believe no man has a right to rule over me.

      To be fair, a simplistic and divisive statement. You know there is a difference between the type of rule we see and what we want. But there is a place for government, just a smaller one. Statements like these are your own brand of “jingoism”.

      • Black Flag says:

        But of course it isn’t.

        The system you support deems it a right to attack non-violent people to enforce edicts and beliefs.

        Whether you want to do this on a ‘small scale’ doesn’t matter.

        In analogy, you are merely justifying cutting off someone’s hands instead of their head …. for now. If the hand chopping doesn’t work – you’ll have no problem taking their head, eventually.

        Small theft is still theft.

        Small violence is still violence.

        All of it is unjustified when applied to non-violent people.

  21. Black Flag says:

    And, GA, you still have not answered this question

    So, answer this, GA.

    If the Majority demands that Jews were Stars on their shirts – their property can be seized at will – they can be imprisoned at will — you see this is moral?

    Remember, a majority voted for this exact scenario

    • You still don’t get it, BF, and you never will simply because YOU want to do whatever YOU want to do without regard to what others around you feel is legal or moral behavior.

      You are afraid that the group around you do not want your brand of moral behavior, and they will punish you for it. If you are so worried about no one else liking your brand of moral behavior, then you should take a serious look at what you term as moral and what you term as not.

      To answer your question of “What right do you have to enforce your morals upon me?”;

      If you are a member of our group (city, county, state, country) then you MUST adhere to our accepted moral behavior or suffer the consequences of your illegal(immoral) behavior. If you do not wish to do that, then we(the aforementioned group) have made it legal that you can go elsewhere to find another group that fits your brand of moral behavior.

      The right to make you adhere to our standard of legal moral behavior is the power of the vote. We all vote on what is legal and illegal with the understanding that we all will abide by the results of that vote. Since you, as an individual, do not want to abide by our standard of legal moral behavior, then we give you permission to leave and find another place that has laws that is more to your liking. Not being angry at you for not wanting our laws to adhere to, I would suggest the country of Somalia since you seem to like that kind of an environment over what we have here. That is just a suggestion. And you must know that you are free to go where ever you like, or even stay here. However if you remain here, you must understand that to do so would subject you to our laws and moral standards.

      Does that answer your question? I know it may not do so to suit you, but that is the answer nonetheless.

  22. TexasChem says:

    The type of society that Black Flag wants with no government could only exist in a world that adhered to the best of ethical values, morals, mores and would not be possible without religion to set the standard.In the community I live in almost all attend church and we have absolutely no crime here from the locals.I could see how BF’s utopia could possibly exist but it would be impossible without religion to set the standard in my opinion.

    For those of you that say religion does not have to be in a society for it to flourish I ask you to ponder how the human race became successful in the first place.At the dawn of man the rule was “my sticks bigger so I get the best portion of the kill, the best mate, the best spot in the cave to sleep yada, yada ya’… get my point?As groups banded together and mankind began to have culture, religion became the defining point for the success of that people.Religions have adapted throughout thousands of years for one purpose and that was to insure survival.All religions of the world adopted their rules of behavior throughout time for that purpose or failed.

    Religions have rules or laws if you will, to set standards of human behavior.They are the very defining point of what make us a civilized and successful people today.If an experiment was set up and a baby was kept isolated from all human contact until adulthood and then you tried to release them into todays society they would not have the social skills, moral, values, ethics that have been developed over the history of mankind to survive and become a part of society.All of these are learned.The trouble with todays world is that they are not being learned today.

    • Black Flag says:


      The type of society that Black Flag wants with no government could only exist in a world that adhered to the best of ethical values, morals, mores and would not be possible without religion to set the standard.

      Absolutely WRONG.

      Read carefully, Tex.

      I don’t give a &#^@ about your ethics, morals, beliefs or religion.

      Go pray to ants for all care.

      You do not have the right to force me to believe as you.

      You do not have the right to use violence to enforce your edicts or beliefs upon non-violent people.

      That’s it. Simple.

  23. Black Flag says:


    You still don’t get it, BF, and you never will simply because YOU want to do whatever YOU want to do without regard to what others around you feel is legal or moral behavior.

    As typical of those that are vested in dogma, purposeful avoidance and misrepresentation is their primary tactic.

    Be clear, GA – I want to do anything I want without imposing upon another.

    I do not accept that you, or anyone else, has the competence to determine what is moral nor do you have the competence to determine when you can use violence on non-violent people.

    Therefore, I resist with all my strength anyone, such as yourself, believes they can force my action based on a moral justification that they are completely unable to articulate for themselves.

    You are afraid that the group around you do not want your brand of moral behavior, and they will punish you for it.

    I am very concerned, indeed

    The group is incompetent.

    Incompetent people with power is incredibly dangerous to other people

    If you are so worried about no one else liking your brand of moral behavior, then you should take a serious look at what you term as moral and what you term as not.

    I am far smarter than you and your group, combined.

    I am infinitely more competent than you or your group in judging myself.

    I respect the same about you that you are infinitely more competent in judging yourself.

    However, you do not share that same respect about others, therefore, feel you have a right to attack non-violent people.

    To answer your question of “What right do you have to enforce your morals upon me?”;

    If you are a member of our group (city, county, state, country) then you MUST adhere to our accepted moral behavior or suffer the consequences of your illegal(immoral) behavior. If you do not wish to do that, then we(the aforementioned group) have made it legal that you can go elsewhere to find another group that fits your brand of moral behavior.

    But I do not believe you are moral.

    So why I am forced to act as you do, and become as immoral as you?

    Does that answer your question? I know it may not do so to suit you, but that is the answer nonetheless.

    No, because you have not answered this question at all – it is perfectly straight forward, GA:

    If the Majority demands that Jews were Stars on their shirts – their property can be seized at will – they can be imprisoned at will — you see this is moral?

    Remember, a majority voted for this exact scenario.

  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The Electoral College is SUPPOSED to accomplish the following:

    Every State has representation in the House proportional to the population of the State. For this reason, a State like California has a bunch of Representatives, and a State like Wyoming has very few.

    However, every State, regardless of population, has 2 Senators.

    The Electoral College has delegates from each State equal to the number of Representatives and Senators that each State has in Congress. This means that the absolute minimum number of delegates to the Electoral College can have is 3.

    This was an attempt to give a bit more of a voice to the low population States in the election of President. If popular vote was the sole determining factor, Presidential Candidates would only have to campaign in a handful of States in order to ensure their election, and the smaller States would not matter in the least. The Electoral College was an attempt at giving the smaller States a bigger say in the election of the President.

  25. Black Flag says:

    And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.

    And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

    And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

    And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

    And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

    And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

    And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

    He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

    And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

    Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

    That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles (I Samuel 8:10-20).

%d bloggers like this: