+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. (/showthread.php?tid=2149)
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 1st September 2004
There are no speed limits on some roads... the only place in the US I know of is some roads in, I believe, Montana. But they only work in specific places, as in places where there are no houses or people living and, hopefully, isn't likely to be much traffic. See, Darunia, as DJ explained the faster you go the worse your reaction time. That means that there is a direct connection between higher speeds and more accidents. It also makes accidents worse. And given that one of the tasks of any government is protecting its people, speed limits are an obvious and very smart way to greatly reduce road deaths. They're also not that intrusive, really...
Oh yeah, the people don't own the government per se. We choose who represents us there and hopefully they recognize that they are responsible to the people, but 'own the government'? It's impossible for any people to run a government without much of a governing body beyond themselves once you get over a population in the lower thousands (10,000 can be done, but 20,000? Maybe.). That's why no big cities, even in New England, have town meetings. It gets untenable once you get too large. So, you have to have people represent you. Yeah, they are responsible to you. But the people can't do everything so they will necessarially know more than you... and obviously there are some things that the government does that people don't like but should be able to recognize if they thought about it are really for their own benifit. Like taxes, or speed limits.
Yes, this is a tough issue and sometimes the government certainly has gone too far. But my point really is that there is a limit on each end -- too little government (total anarchy!) would be as big a disaster as a too opressive one (think Nazis).
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 1st September 2004
I was actually surprised to find the whole concept of town meetings was still done in smaller towns. I had previously thought it was something that was only done in "the past". And yes, Tulsa is completely devoid of any sort of town meeting.
As ABF pointed out, and as I'm trying to also point out, this really isn't a matter of the government stepping over our rights to tell us what to do and control us. This is a very simple totally non-intrusive law that basically just makes sure we behave ourselves on the road. Once again, I must ask exactly HOW this "horrid" law is a breech of civil liberties?
I have a feeling I know what your response will be, so I'll just make a preemptive strike.
No, this is not some "stepping stone" to much harsher control and laws that really will infringe on our rights. That is a non-sequiter type logical flaw. Non-sequiter literally meaning "does not follow". There is no proof that this law will lead to greater constraints, thus it DOES NOT FOLLOW that this law will lead to much stricter laws limiting our freedom. Provide evidence that this is somehow a gateway, then I will listen to such an argument.
Oh yes, the non-sequiter is a logical flaw used ALL THE TIME in politics, as many of you may have noticed :D.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 1st September 2004
Quote:He just hasn't adjusted from the Autobahn yet.
There was a 100 car pile-up on the Autobahn one time. *feels sorry for the guy who was at fault for that wreck*
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 1st September 2004
Quote:I was actually surprised to find the whole concept of town meetings was still done in smaller towns. I had previously thought it was something that was only done in "the past". And yes, Tulsa is completely devoid of any sort of town meeting.
I think it's mostly a New England thing. And eve n here as I said it's just the smaller towns, not big ones (my town of 20,000 has a town council...), that have them. But they definitely are around. But as I said I'd say that if you get decent showings you can't get much over a population of 10,000 with them...
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Lord Neo - 1st September 2004
While the autobahn has no official speed limit you can still be ticketed for driving too fast.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - OB1 - 1st September 2004
I believe there is a speed limit now. I drove through that highway and it's beautiful but friggin' nuts.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 1st September 2004
Lets hear it for the NY Yankees, who were shut out in an incredible 22-0 loss agains the Cleveland Indians!!!! :evilha:
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 1st September 2004
Yankees are teh suck.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Private Hudson - 1st September 2004
Darunia Wrote:I definitely think that the government that governs least governs best; America is so rich and bored that our lawmakers waste time and money coming up with these dumb, unfair laws--liquors-age laws when we can get drafted into a war but can't have a drink before going out; mandatory seat belts, it is illegal to smoke inside a public building in Massachusetts... its insane. People should live as they want as long as it doesnt effect anyone. It's fucking crazy, we need regime change right here (not Bush in particular; we need a new government all together.)
So after reading all (well I perused some) of this thread I came to one conclusion..
Darunia's revolution to overthrow the government because they over-govern the people will result in the following things:
- People will be able to smoke in a public place.
- People will be able to drink at the age of 18.
- People are not required to wear seatbelts.
- Speed limits will be increased.
Yes, bring on the regime change, it will liberate us all!
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 2nd September 2004
Problem is, chaos CREATES order :D. Ya just can't get a true anarchy, because they will all inevitably turn into what we have now.
People are free to do whatever they want. Some people start killing others. People defend themselves. People start organizing possies to better this defense. People start creating groups to control these groups. All of this is allowed in an environment with NO RULES, because to say you can't form any sort of controls IS a rule :D. Ya see? It'll all eventually swell into a full fledged government :D. Let's assume there is a rule that says "no rules". Well, how do you enforce that no rules rule? You create a group to enforce it! Boom, it all eventually explodes into... well actually it'll become Cuba or something if it starts out like that.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - N-Man - 2nd September 2004
Right, can we agree that "one's freedom ends where another's freedom starts", or however that quote goes..?
Quote:Some people start killing others. People defend themselves. People start organizing possies to better this defense. People start creating groups to control these groups.
Okay, let's suppose we have a government whose only duty is to prevent people killing other people. Well, not *just* that, but also stuff like stealing and mugging and whatnot. That's what would be called not an "anarchic" state, but rather a "minarchic" state.
Quote:Ya see? It'll all eventually swell into a full fledged government
Well, I don't think it has to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 3rd September 2004
If you remove laws, as DJ says laws will form in their place... humans couldn't have a society with no laws forever. It'd never sustain itsself, as many people want laws and order in their societies to reduce risk and improve their lives.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - N-Man - 3rd September 2004
I find it rather ironic that a proponent of utopian communism rejects the possibility of the simplest form of government, based on the laws of freedom, which man has lived by for millenia.
That said I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying. I'm not suggesting the destruction of laws, in fact I merely want to ensure that the government's only role is to enforce those laws. Laws such as protection from physical harm, theft, etc.
However, if you're talking about social security-related legislation, which I don't think belong in the government's realm; why couldn't people interested in such a system organize one themselves?
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 4th September 2004
All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Lord Neo - 4th September 2004
Darunia Wrote:All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.But alot of the ones you've mentioned aren't stupid.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Geno - 4th September 2004
Go to DumbLaws.com. Those laws are stupid.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 5th September 2004
Exactly, most of the laws you mentioned are quite good...
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 5th September 2004
Laws are made for a reason. That reason being...TO ENSLAVE THE IGNORANT WITH KUNG-FU GRIP!!
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 5th September 2004
There are too many laws---like the "you can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday law"---now the slack-jawed Tendites will say "who wants to drink that early anyway", but they'd be missing the point---why shouldn't you be able to? The government shouldn't dictate morality. I'll never give in on this. It dictates too much.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 5th September 2004
If they did that though, then we'd soon become a nation of drugged-out hippies with nothing better to do on Sunday than get drunk and watch the Yankees/Jets. Who wants to live in a world like that?!
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Private Hudson - 5th September 2004
Darunia Wrote:All I said was that we have too many stupid laws that we don't need.
No you didn't. You said we (you) needed a regime change. And said it with such gusto and conviction that really led everyone to believe that you were some kind of.. nut who wanted to bring down the Government, and the very fabric of society so that people could do WHAT they wanted, WHEN they wanted and to WHOM they wanted without and rammifications or repurcussions to deter them from doing so. NOW WHO'S THE IGNORANT FUCK!><!!<!!>!??
A lot of those stupid laws, in fact the only stupid laws you mentioned (Alcohol on Sunday morning, before the age of 21) aren't present in Australia.
Jealous?
Although, you'd be hard up trying to find a place OPEN on Sunday morning from which to purchase said alcohol, but that's beside the point.
Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Lord Neo - 5th September 2004
It's illegal for a store to be open on Sunday in Canada under the Lords Day Act, but none of the stores care, cause they know the charges would be dismissed, and the government knows that all that would happen would be that the law would be ruled unconstitutional. They just haven't gotten around to repeling it because they have more important things to do.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Geno - 6th September 2004
Great Rumbler Wrote:If they did that though, then we'd soon become a nation of drugged-out hippies with nothing better to do on Sunday than get drunk and watch the Yankees/Jets. Who wants to live in a world like that?!
I do!
...I mean... :wha:
Okay, I don't.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 7th September 2004
Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.
"Let's face it", as if you know me in person; but since you don't, I'll just write that whole spiel off as the ramblings of a glamour-mongering asshole Aussie fuck. This is why things will never get any better or change, because no one cares. They just bend over and take it in the ass. Corrupt or ridiculous laws? Should we change them for the better? Hell no--but rather, lets ridicule those who would.
GORON-TENDOCITY APPROVAL RATE: 31.6%
His Majesty, Emperor Darunia, does not approve of the way things are going in this backwater province of his. :nono:
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 7th September 2004
Of yours? Phht. The Dark Lord Frances Von Nintendofan McTinkertonville owns this place!
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Private Hudson - 7th September 2004
Darunia Wrote:Let's face it, you're just an angry alcoholic.
"Let's face it", as if you know me in person;[/b]
Actually, I would say the phrase "Let's face it" is a far more general term than my trying to comment personally about you. It's more along the lines of "From what you've shown us, everyone here can tell that you really just want to drink alcohol legally, and purchase it on Sundays rather than this proposed regime change that you are now claiming you never claimed to have claimed and really only said it in such a profound yet oddly childish manner to get away from the fact that you are just an angry adolescent alcoholic who can't take a joke and instead insults the person who has got your number (figuratively speaking I'm not trying to claim that I know you personally) because you're angry and looking to score your next hit."
Quote:but since you don't, I'll just write that whole spiel off as the ramblings of a glamour-mongering asshole Aussie fuck.
Glamour mongering? Coming from the person trying to masquerade his alcohlism off as being a revolutionist with stupid ideas. :wha: You're right, it's much easier to write something off than to admit that you're an idiot.
Quote:This is why things will never get any better or change, because no one cares.
Lord knows I don't. I can buy alcohol and go to clubs and buy alcohol, and I can buy alcohol on Sunday mornings. And gee it's great to not be hassled by smokers lighting up in public places. :far-out:
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 8th September 2004
I stand my ground and maintain my claims. All of the alcoholism I've shown here is that I support lowering the drinking age; I found it immoral. You're attacks on me as being an alcoholic are as valid as I would be calling you an bigot whom hates Americans--both are insulting exaggerations. I'd ask for an apology, but I know that's above you.--so, I'll just settle for insulting you and your country. Both suck. There--I did it.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 8th September 2004
Young people have enough problems without adding alcholism to that list. Wait...what I am saying? A bunch already are even though it's illegal. I say just leave it, I mean honestly, is it hurting anyone? If you're 15 and can't live without downing a cold one then it's not looking good for you. *steps down off soap-box* Okay, I'm done now.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Private Hudson - 8th September 2004
Darunia Wrote:I stand my ground and maintain my claims. All of the alcoholism I've shown here is that I support lowering the drinking age; I found it immoral. You're attacks on me as being an alcoholic are as valid as I would be calling you an bigot whom hates Americans--both are insulting exaggerations. I'd ask for an apology, but I know that's above you.--so, I'll just settle for insulting you and your country. Both suck. There--I did it.
I'd love to apologize, however, you're the one who was being beligerant, I was just joking. :)
Quote:Young people have enough problems without adding alcholism to that list. Wait...what I am saying? A bunch already are even though it's illegal. I say just leave it, I mean honestly, is it hurting anyone? If you're 15 and can't live without downing a cold one then it's not looking good for you. *steps down off soap-box* Okay, I'm done now.
Well that's like saying that ALL people would be better off without alcohol, so why not just outlaw it altogether. The fact is that when you reach 18 you are considered an adult. You are considered to be old enough and mature enough to have a say in who runs your country. You are old enough to go off to fight and die in a war to protect your freedom to... not drink!
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 10th September 2004
Thank you, Private Hudson. They cannot understand that I'm not arguing whether or not alcohol is good or not (though I enjoy it); I'm arguing the nature and legitimacy of the ridiculous law in question. Which is dubious at best.
TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Great Rumbler - 11th September 2004
If alcohol is outlawed, then only outlaws will drink alcohol. Or something like that.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Weltall - 12th February 2020
It's been 16 years, I bet nothing has changed.
Abortion: Honestly, I think only parents who actively desire children should be having them. Abortions should be available at low or no cost to every woman. I have no moral issues with abortion at all. I feel that Republican politicians do not really intend to overturn Roe v. Wade because the existence of legal abortion is a keystone agitation point to drive voter turnout. If abortion were illegal, millions of Republicans would find little other reason to vote Republican.
Immigration: I'm not for open borders and I accept that illegal immigration lowers wages for citizens. I also feel that the Republican Party treats this issue with no honesty. They go after the immigrants while doing nothing to stop the businesses and employers which create the demand for illegal immigrant labor (because who are those guys voting for).
Gay Marriage: I have to admit that I was self-hating and in the closet 16 years ago. I'm a man who is attracted to both men and women and I always have been. So, I'm obviously 100% favorable.
Death Penalty: Hard no. There is no way to ensure an innocent person can't be killed. And even then, I don't feel the state has the right to take a life in revenge.
Religion: Agnostic atheist of the "I don't really care at all if there's anything" variety. Religion is generally a negative and regressive influence.
Affirmative Action: Conflicted. It shouldn't be necessary and it is unfair, but not as unfair as things would be without it, I think.
Welfare: A strong social safety net is the hallmark of an advanced nation-state and we don't have one.
Health Care: M4A.
Education: I fully support funding traditional education, but we should also be looking at alternatives for children who don't thrive in the 20th Century system we still fully rely upon.
Foreign Policy: Minimal intervention, and only if the outcome for everyone is a clear positive.
Gun control: I think it's a losing fight, politically, and I also think there are good reasons for people to have guns. I believe in regulations, and certain people should not have access to them, and I really dislike the notion of average joes having military-grade weaponry. But I also understand their value in home defense, especially when you live in a place where police response is not quick or easy. I do not personally own a firearm, but I am not opposed to doing it.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 12th February 2020
Environment: Take direct control of major polluting entities or we all die. Those are literally our only choices.
Economy: Democratic socialism. We tried capitalism. It didn't work. We tried state run communism, it didn't work either. We can try bottom-up socialism instead. Instead of a commisar in every board room, put the power in the employees. Every company will go back to stake holding instead of share holding, meaning all the investing is done by the employees themselves. The stock market will be burned to the ground and urinated on then fed to pigs who will be fed to other pigs and those pigs will be shot into space! Every company, now majority-owned by it's own employees, will need to be fully open with said employees about all their plans. This is the end-game of unions, their final form.
Voting rights: Voting should be far easier. Any elitist attempt to put down a bar on this is only to help the elites maintain their power. That's all it ever was for, all it ever will be for. The current voting system is also corrupt, right down to the party level.
Ban all PACs (this will take an amendment), ban individual spending on political ads. Instead provide a capped per-candidate federal budget for campaign spending that equalizes the playing field. Regulate the parties. They've been private clubs long enough. They need to be publically accountable. Banish the caucus and eliminate weird districting rules. If it's a national vote, a straight national count is all that should matter. If it's a state vote, a striaght state vote is all that should matter. Give individual regions the power to define their own district lines. This will do a lot to restrict the possibility of gerrymandering. Change the voting system to scored.
Abortion: My thoughts are nuanced on this, but in general in the first couple terms there's not even a moral decision to be made. It's a mass of unthinking cells. Potential is irrelevant, because if it was relevant we'd all be morally required to provide as many cells as we could get away with to turn into clones. Beyond that, it becomes morally grey, but I will say this. As a general rule, in those grey situations, I'm not qualified to make a decision for you. It's YOUR personal decision. Well, considering where I am... it's a woman's decision. A woman and her doctor. So then, what beyond that? We need better funding for orphaneges and foster care. Being able to give someone up for adoption should be far more viable than it is.
Immigration: I believe in a path to citizenship. No, it's not good that someone is an illegal citizen, but the way people react to it is awful. Kick them out, imprison them, steal their children? No. Provide a way for them to BECOME citizens, and make it easy! The US makes it far too hard. What we need is an Ellis Island for the southern border. No, not an "open border", people still need to get in but if they pass a basic check for contageous disease and an understanding of US rules and customs, that's something that should be doable in maybe a couple weeks, THAT DAY if they've studied in advance. From there, give them a card- let them in and point the way to one of several places open to providing aid to those trying to start a new life.
Gay Marriage: This goes under the "duh" category. Being the gay is fine. It's not hurting anybody. That's really all you need.
Death Penalty: Against it as a matter of principal. Of course I could mention if a police officer is being shot at they have a right to defend themselves with lethal force, but frankly the death penalty isn't about that, it's about what to do with the murderer once they're caught. Considering there are people who have actively suggested drug dealers should be killed, well, yea I certainly disagree with that. I'm an atheist though, I don't believe in life after death so that colors my view. Of course I reject the death penalty.
Religion: Atheist that could be convinced with evidence, but in the event there was a god- it would have a lot of explaining to do. Meaning I'm not about to start worshipping it, whatever it is. In any event, politically everyone has a right to believe in a god, but NOT a right to act on it, and while I won't debate religion ordinarily, if you are using religion to justify a policy or a scientifically testable belief, I WILL call you out on it. Religious freedom does not trump systemic prejudice and it's effects.
Affirmative Action: A necessary course correction. You don't straighten the wheel to get back on the road, you turn the opposite way for a while until you're going the right way. Only when social equality is reached can we actually do away with affirmative action, and we aren't even close to there yet. See: Unite the Right rally
Health Care: Basic human right, full stop. Anything else is a useless compromise.
Education: Education needs a major overhaul. It's progressed quite a bit, but teachers need more than funding. They need repeated training programs to familiarize themselves with modern teaching technology and modern knowledge. These must be fully funded. School years need to be extended as other countries do, and college should simply be something everyone takes part in after high school. I am self-taught, but I don't wish that on anyone. College should be as free as every other grade level. As for teaching strategy, that evolves with the times and we need a board of the best and brightest minds in modern knowledge on teaching to make sure our methods match the science.
Foreign Policy: We don't jump into armed conflict unless it literally threatens to directly attack us, and we ALWAYS declare a goal along with a declaration of war, so that the ware can actually end. Beyond that, we provide aid not in the form of finances but in directly offering to build things. This is how we used to do things over 70 years ago, and it was working until we decided to substitute directly building hospitals and schools for just dumping a wad of cash on the country. We know how that ended up. They take that money and buy weapons FROM us to eventually use AGAINST us.
Gun control: Australia's model has a proven track record, and I think a version of that in the US would be very effective. People are allowed to have guns, but every individual gun needs it's own approval and a stated reason. None of those reasons can be "self defense", however one of those reasoms can be "I'm in the militia". The militias across the country will become well-regulated, both at a state and national level. No oddball nuts that think militias are there to rise up against the government. It'll essentially end up treated like a branch of the military with more bottom-up self ownership. This is really the only difference I'd have with Australia's model.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - alien space marine - 17th February 2020
*ASM reads his own comments from 2004, suddenly feels shame and embarrassment at the sheer stupidity of his younger self*
Environment:it’s the government job to protect the air we breath and the water we drink ect..
Economy: Prevent oligarchs and soulless corporate conglomerates from buying up the “free press” and brainwashing the public
Abortion: I only draw the line at so called partial birth abortion, but otherwise I understand the necessity for women’s reproductive freedom.
death penalty, only for serial killers were the evidence is beyond any doubt
guns: I’m Canadian
religion: oppose theocracy
foreign policy: you don’t go to war without approval of the U.N sercurity council, except in the most dire situations.
Immigration, the same as weltall
gay marriage: The whole institution of marriage is a crock,but two consenting adults can do whatever they want.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 18th February 2020
A universal basic income would mean the need to tie your financial well-being to another person as in marriage would be moot. It would also allow people in abusive relationships otherwise utterly stuck to pick up and leave any time they wish. The wishing part is trickier admittedly. Yang wasn't my choice, but I am grateful he brought UBI into the public conciousness. It's probably going to be the last thing we as a worldwide society do, the thing that makes us go full on post-scarcity.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 1st March 2020
I don't see anything in my positions post from '04 I would disagree with.
Of course, in some ways I've stayed the same while the activists in the party have moved left -- see drug policy most obviously, which I am still not in favor of legalizing for the most part -- but at least I am consistent!
... Well, now I would be much more insistent about us needing to be carbon neutral in the near future, and not just 'cut emissions before we destroy the planet' or something as I'd probably have said back then, but I'm mostly consistent.
As for health care, in the long term I support single payer but we can't go straight to it, there needs to be a transition, and it might take a while. Having some kind of legal private insurance on top of it may also be a reasonable idea.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Weltall - 2nd March 2020
ABF, if fate and circumstance ever lead us to being in the same room together, we are going to smoke the fuck out.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - A Black Falcon - 2nd March 2020
Absolutely not.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Sacred Jellybean - 30th March 2020
I would pay good money to watch Rtan and Brian get blitzed, and even more to join them.
I started to write up my political beliefs a week or so ago, then lost interest, but I'm interested in an idea that DJ floated: eliminating the stock market and giving each worker a stake in the company they work for. Can you explain this a bit more, or point me towards some literature? I think it's an interesting idea.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 1st April 2020
(1st March 2020, 10:12 PM)A Black Falcon Wrote: I don't see anything in my positions post from '04 I would disagree with.Why can't we?
Of course, in some ways I've stayed the same while the activists in the party have moved left -- see drug policy most obviously, which I am still not in favor of legalizing for the most part -- but at least I am consistent!
... Well, now I would be much more insistent about us needing to be carbon neutral in the near future, and not just 'cut emissions before we destroy the planet' or something as I'd probably have said back then, but I'm mostly consistent.
As for health care, in the long term I support single payer but we can't go straight to it, there needs to be a transition, and it might take a while. Having some kind of legal private insurance on top of it may also be a reasonable idea.
Well never mind about that, here's the one point I'd make. It's okay to change your mind on things. It doesn't make you a bad person to look back and realize you were wrong about some things. That's not what being inconsistent is, that's just being stubborn. You don't win any prizes for having been "right your entire life", that's a ridiculous and unrealistic standard. If you have never changed your mind on a single political belief your whole life, that's more suspect to me. It speaks of stubborness, not consistency.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Dark Jaguar - 1st April 2020
(30th March 2020, 6:23 AM)Sacred Jellybean Wrote: I would pay good money to watch Rtan and Brian get blitzed, and even more to join them.It's not just an interesting idea, it's how companies used to work. It's stakeholding.
I started to write up my political beliefs a week or so ago, then lost interest, but I'm interested in an idea that DJ floated: eliminating the stock market and giving each worker a stake in the company they work for. Can you explain this a bit more, or point me towards some literature? I think it's an interesting idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)
Here's a general description of the idea in terms of responsibility and who is necessary for a company's existance. In the past, rather than random people (usually upper middle class and up) buying stocks in a company, the company's workers owned it. It was considered a perk of working for a company, getting stake in it's future directly. This also ties into the pension plans of old as opposed to modern 401Ks. This is one of those cases were the old ways were better, and the reason is because the "new ways" never were meant to benefit the workers, they were meant to benefit the top. A return to that would benefit everyone, and it would turn every company into it's own Union in a matter of speaking. By doing this, employees would be able to directly demand representation on the board of directors. Of course, the owners of these companies do NOT want that, but ultimately this is the way forward.
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Darunia - 1st June 2020
I no longer recognize the Republican party. I have always been a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. There ain't no more room in Das Trump's new order for my kind. /sad face
RE: TAKE NOTE: Political Standing. - Sacred Jellybean - 2nd June 2020
Republican establishment and the remaining sane Republican voters have embraced Trump's transformation of what used to be the party of so-called family values and personal responsibilty. Their craven opportunism knows no bounds.