Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Not sure what's so difficult about this...

Say you were asked to vote on an issue you feel strongly about, but a vote in support means someone close to you that you love will be killed "for the greater good of all".

Would you still vote yes because the main issue is really that important to you?

Would you find another option that doesn't involve the death of someone, let alone a loved one?

Would you just not vote?

These are the decisions trump voters and conservatives had to make the last election.

They determined the really good things were worth sacraficing the lives and freedoms of others who directly or indirectly affect their lives.

They voted against the right for their wives, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and every other women in their family to become second class citizens.

They voted for every immigrant who works to make their lives better to be packed into concentration camps and potential death.

They voted for their own rights to be subjugated to the whims of the 1%, including their jobs, homes, assets, security and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

They voted because the ideas and things promised were so much better than their right to life, liberty and happiness for them and everyone else.

And this is what people who didn't vote for trump can't understand. How in the world were they able to toss other people's lives into the meatgrinder for some promises that were never going to be fulfilled because the 1% is only in it all for themselves?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

gol979 · 41-45, M

Voting is pretty much always choosing the lesser of 2 evils. Its still voting for evil. How about none of us normal people play the rigged voting game and ignore all politicians?

1-25 of 27

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@gol979 I'm just saying, the lesser of the 2 evils here was voting for anyone other than trump and people still voted for him. That he was considered the "lesser evil" is unconscionable.

And yes! We need to completely overhaul the entire voting system that was created originally and has continued to only promote the rich and not actually provide true democracy because slave holders felt left out.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@gol979 Who fills the vacuum? Who organises health care, roads, defence, protects the weak? Whoever it is will essentially become politicians because they will decide how resources are spent and who gets what from the country's wealth.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK i disagree. Everything you have pointed out can be done without government and by normal people. We would have much more control over our lives. And your reply is kind of making my point for me.

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@gol979 While that is a utopian view, it is unrealistic. There will always be someone who wants to gain control of all those systems abnd manipulate it for their own benefits.

Government should be run by regular people. We do have too many people in Congress fancying themselves as experts on health, education, laws and social needs while not actually having any significant study or experience in any of it. This is where "normal people" who are experts of their fields should be and are not.

No government is failable to manipulation and hijacking. But we should be able to change course when it is found that our government is working against its citizens, such as we are seeing now.

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@gol979 One example then for you to help me understand. How can 'normal people' organise a cancer service? Who pays for the training of the medics and support staff? The equipment? The building of places for treatment to be given? What mechanism do you envisage to agree how it will be done?

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FoxyQueen its not utopian at all. There will of course be people who want to dominate others but they are a very small number and normal people vastly out number them. We dont need government, red or blue, they clearly do not represent normal people

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK so people who want to help other medically or by providing genuine charity wont exist without the mythical government? All knowledge will disappear without government? Of course not. We will be able to do all these things without government.....and it will also be way more efficiemt (barring war and extortion ie taxation)

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@gol979 You haven't answered my question. Of course some people will want to help others at a personal level, but I can't give someone cancer treatment or even diagnose it. Who organises the training? Tell me, please in this wonderful 'efficient' tax free society. Who arranges education and ensures sound knowledge is passed on and not falsehoods? How will the weak be protected from those who would exploit?

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@gol979 Okay, so what you are explaining is a community and yes, those should absolutely exist, but those communities need organizers, leaders to organize tasks and to make sure everyone is adhering to the covenant of the community. That's government at its most basic form.

The problem is, community covenants don't expand beyond their local community. How will things be handled between communities? Particularly ones that have extremely odious covenants that work against our own?

Eventually, we revert back to tribalozm with micro governments and literally accomplish nothing beyond our communities except maybe occasionally raiding those communities we hate and trading with those we like.

I mean, it's all a form of government regardless of how you want to think of it. 🤷‍♀

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@FoxyQueen I'm going to withdraw from this discussion as it's your thread and you have it fully under control.😄

GuiltyBiStander · 31-35, F

@FreddieUK

Ordinary people already "fill the vacuum", just by showing up for work every day and doing the best they can.

Factory workers, farmers, bankers, police, teachers, nurses, truck drivers, miners, houskeepers, firefighters, repair mechanics - They use their experience, training, and good judgement to get real things done that make a difference for real people. They do it without political minders, and without constantly checking some phony ideology to make sure they're mentally & emotionally "correct".

Doing that work and making those decisions makes them powerful in ways that matter. But it doesn't mean that they "become politicians". The reason modern politics is broken is because politicians no longer care about real work, and don't judge their success or failure by what really makes things better or worse for anyone else.

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@FreddieUK Don't bow out on my behalf. You've asked pertinent questions!

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@GuiltyBiStander Where did they get their education? Who planned it? Who didn't get invited to participate and who decided that they wouldn't be. It's all political and pretending if that politicians can actually be dispensed with is naive. I agree dispensing with corrupt politicians is a great idea, but unless you like anarchy, there has to be a system of decision making about an economy so everyone can flourish.

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@GuiltyBiStander So now you have discussed an oligarchy where employers and corporations are the government by providing or removing jobs and dictating safety, health, wages, standards of living, etc.

It's still a government, only this time, operated by those with the most financial power while making anyone not a part of the stockholders, investors and CEO's basically endentured servants. This has already been done and it sucked.

GuiltyBiStander · 31-35, F

@FoxyQueen

No.

I haven't discussed any oligarchy "where employers and corporations are the government".

It looks like that's what's on your mind though, and since this is your post I'm sure you'll make it all clear.

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@GuiltyBiStander Fair.

Explain how what you have said differs from Oligarcy.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK if you cant even imagine people being smart, kind and caring without government thats entirely up to you. I happen to think we do not need government to help other people. My answer to all yout questions will ultimately be....you and your local community can do it. We are a collaborative species and i think we are mostly kind and want to help others is need. Government is the antithesis of this adult mindset

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@gol979 "Adult mindset" = shots fired.

Part of the purpose of the Federal Government is to standardize relations between states. It allows for interstate commerce, energy transfer and other large things that are required for communities to run.

If we go back to individual communities, we lose all that, so some communities don't have power, access to foods, access to water, access to healthcare. How is that beneficial to the people who just want to be kind and do good things if they can't get what they need to do that because there is no centralized government helping with that?

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@gol979 So, you're suggesting a local community government. Does this just happen? Does someone organise it, invite people? When we all get there, will there be an agenda? Who sets it?

I do believe that many of us are collaborative and as far as I can see, there's nothing to stop people being collaborative now with government. People get on the streets to complain, or they get on the streets to support the power they believe they voted in. In a local community there will still be small groups who don't agree with others. It's a nice idea to think we all want to support each other: my neighbours and I get on brilliantly, but I know if we discussed immigration we'd immediately fall out. I know if a foreign nation decided to come and take a part of the country our pitchforks, or equivalent, would probably not deter them. I would be against arming people because I've seen what it's done in the US, but others would say we must be armed. Who's going to settle that argument because either we are armed or we are not.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FoxyQueen these leaders wont have any powers that you dont have though. And if we want we can ignore them and do our own thing. It could be wrong but thats how we learn. Im more optimistic about fellow humans and dont think we need the hand/fist of government to keep us in line.

And you maybe correct about friction between other communities but again it will not descend into mass violence and domination, like whats going on now.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK all valid points but again you are assuming we will all start pulling out guns and blasting each other for disagreements. I dont think the majority of us are like that at all. And you can disagree with people, absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I will also say all the negative points you correctly point out are exacerbated/created by government

FoxyQueen · 51-55, F

@gol979 Also, what about invaders from overseas? Individual communities are easy to destroy. A centralized government provides the ability to activte communities and distribute protectors that individual communities wouldn't have access to in the numbers needed.

I think the movie "The Postman" really illustrated that no matter what situation people find themselves in, they are going to establish a leadership that becomes a government. Otherwise, there is no commuity because there is nothing that provides safety and security.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FoxyQueen that holds no water at all. How many millions globally have died in war and by government decree since world war 1?

FreddieUK · 70-79, M

@gol979 I definitely do not see have the assumption that 'we will all start pulling out guns and blasting each other for disagreements'. But it doesn't take many people to decide they want to enforce their views with violence and the mass shootings in the States (and now sadly elsewhere) show that to be true.

I am going to leave it here for now as I have to go for awhile. You and the others who joined in this thread have shown the best of SW. This has been a full-on intellectual debate with no swearing, no personal abuse and, from my perspective, completely respectful. I look forward to further such debates.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@FreddieUK touche. Have a great rest of your day and i concur, a healthy debate.

1-25 of 27