The Realist Party

Sounds good to me. I'm tired of political infighting, and our values no longer reflect anything approximating reality.

Our elites are manipulating those false values to make us approve of what they do, which is to give a little bit to charity and take a lot!

Most people are saturated in Big Media and totally confused. The existing opposition parties aren't actually in opposition to the problem.

I'm ready for a new option.

 

Land over-use actually isn't the root of our environmental problems, that is merely an illusion created by perspective.

people only ever see used land because people are only ever in land that has been made acceptable for us to use. so there is this illusion that land is used more than it in fact is.

there are problems with how we use land, but not the amount of it we in fact use (also the distribution of land use, "where we use land" but that's another thing entirely)

I have similar complaints with many of the other issues raised in your text, the fact that many of them are statements with no backing, and many of them are completely absurd would be a good start.

"Drug use, alcohol use and excessive sexual behavior are signs of people who cannot control their own urges, and correlate highly with criminal activity."

This isn't actually true. It's an insecure judgmental church lady's view of the world that has minimal basis in fact.

That being said you can draw ECONOMIC correlations, but those are not factual correlations (they are different things) and that this person uses the word fact sort of sinks their own boat.

"Government works best when it concentrates wealth and channels it into research and development of new technologies and building of new infrastructure."

This is a subjective judgment, that frankly, is not true, look at all the money that was wasted on R&D during the reagan administration.... Do you really believe that government worked? because it DEFINITELY concentrated wealth, and DEFINITELY channeled much of it into R&D.

Essentially the whole thing is the crazy rambling of a "disillusioned, angry, directionless person"

 

The National Socialist Party.

 

You mean dictatorship?

I mean if there is no debate then how are things decided the only alternative would be dictate.

And who’s ‘reality’ are we talking about?

Whose bit? Who decides who’s bit?

But capitalism is a very poor way to decide who gets rewarded. Two doctors one goes into plastic surgery and makes a mint another that goes to work in a free clinic in a run down area that is desperate for medical care is paid a pittance.

Who is the most deserving of the reward?

What civilisations are you talking about? Can you actually give an example? Because if that view isn’t based on history it would seem like hollow and pointless rhetoric.

Again this doesn’t seem to be based on anything except the authors fevered imagination.

What regulation?

But who decides who are ‘quality people’ how do they show they have ‘good brains’ who decides what needs ‘fixing’ and what kind of fix is needed?

But if the culture is capitalistic then what is to be done?

In what way?

And just how is class division based on intelligence or dedication?

Are you claiming that all working class people are of sub-normal intelligence? Or that they aren’t dedicated?

How?

How?

(and if things are to be based on their merits I think the author of this manifesto should be thinking long and hard, because its not that good)

Oh so you support murder, rape and brutality?

So tell me which ‘people’ have a ‘pure’ culture, language and heritage, untainted by any other peoples culture, language and heritage since homo sapiens came out of Africa?

What?

And some of the worst abuses, violence and murders happen within families as well.

Indoctrinated who do you think is indoctrinating?

So what would you do?

Why do you believe this?

Please explain this seems garbled?

What civilisations are you talking about?

You talk of society but you only mention individualistic goals. If people thought less about there own self interest and more on that of their community wouldn’t that be better for society as a whole?

I don’t agree with much of this a lot of it seem based on rubbish ideas and others clearly haven’t been thought through.

Why?

For what reasons to you think it good?

And in what way is the above manifesto supposed to improve things?

And in what way is the above manifesto supposed to improve things?
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

Sounds scarey:leaving:

 

I say your party is insane

 

at your party conference, do you sing tommorow belongs to me?

 

Do you ever come back and defend your arguments?

 

What's wrong with a state having some control anyway?

 

Regulation good, control bad.

 

So a state should regulate their army, regulate their social programs, but have no control over them?

Give me a break.

 

Well technically

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military

And a democratic state really is just the organ of the free people.


Honestly even most state social programs I think would be handled better if the programs were administered by private forces.

 

I'm sorry, are you relying on a wikipedia article to explain something for you?

A government requires a certain amount control, otherwise there would be chaos. No offense, but you're privatization libertarian wild west utopia isn't exactly a formula that ensures inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness.

 

So what's wrong with giving a democratic state a little freedom to pass laws that maintain social order and legitimately controls what these free people find are necessary?

The American government feedback loop of fear and mistrust is such a crock of shit.

If you believe in electing a free and democratic state, then why are you against public social programs? A democratically elected state IS a public social program. Why does it work for governance and not for delivering actual services?

 

Only governments can take away life, liberty and happiness in most cases.

 

Yeah, so... that's a lot of control they have that is pretty necessary to a democratic society.

 

The problem is laws to maintain social order. You have obvious ones sure, like murder, fraud, robbery, ect, where it's a basically universal agreement on what is bad. Most laws are matters of morality though and different people have different morals.

I believe in some social programs, I believe in using tax money to help people that need, I just think specifically it should be contracted out to private companies to do it. But different experiences with said welfare programs, even non welfare agencies like DCF have just further made my conviction that the state can't do anything efficiently.

 

Are we more free then we were 100 years ago? We on one side try to set up all these laws and provisions to protect our rights, especially from the government. But then on the flip side we give the government more power in every aspect of life and give up our right to personal choice.

 

Yeah, but that's the kind of logic that dictates the best thing to do is to leave your bike by the side of the road when it suddenly stops working. You're being critical and not using your head to think critically.

Is it the chain? Is it a flat tire? Does your bike that has for years taken you from point A to B have some problems with its rims rubbing against the brake pads?

Improving efficiency isn't just about being critical of a system, it's thinking critically about WHY some things aren't working. Social programs and services that are rendered by public funding have problems - just as any system would - only from an ideological standpoint, transferring jobs to the private sector has historically shown a trend to increase poor standards, skyrocketing temp job numbers, shitty part-time employment positions with little benefits and significantly lower skilled training. And once you transfer a large amount of public services being executed and delivered to private contractors bidding for the monopolized control and glory of being subsidized and embedded with taking care of the government's actual business, there is room for more government corruption to hand out "pot de vin" contracts to boardroom buddies and the control of the very services that people elected their officials to monitor are no longer in the direct control of the democratic and free people who created and formed the state. Who will be accountable to the people in a privatized social program world? Think critically.

The power to change the way services are delivered and administered becomes totally outsource in the most literal way from the people who seek to benefit from it.

 

It's my shared view, along with many academics and the general populace, that George W Bush utilized the resources of his administration in the face of serious and demonstrably questionable threats to national security to orchestrate a centralized government and re-configure the power confines of White House governance.

The thing is, George W Bush capitalized on this restructuring to benefit the wealthy - like, every single bill he passed was a tax cut for the wealthy. I can't think of a single fucking bill in 8 long years that did any god damn thing to protect the rights of people.

The way the social contract is supposed to work, is that by giving our consent to participate and form a government with laws and equal rights, we give up a certain amount of control so that legitimately legislators can enact on behalf of the democratic process to govern. When a person or groups of people legitimately have overstepped their legitimate right to govern according to the powers that be that consent to the social contract, people have every right to withhold their consent to it and to take it back - or to create measures to deny corruption and protect themselves.

The state is the social contract, the nation is the people who participate in the democracy, and public are those who have been robbed of their democratic power that has been transferred to the private sector through the arm of government.

You can make an analogy of the whole thing much like Adam Smith's invisible hand.

Services are needed by the public --> THE GOVERNMENT --> The best services are determined by private competition/interest
(goods are in demand in the market) --> (the invisible hand) --> (The best goods are determined by private competition/interest)

It's a very linear logic to assume that through an invisible hand window, the process of such a government is supposed to operate has limited authority, and should create an ideal arena for private enterprise competition to determine the "winner" of delivering social services based on who can do it the cheapest for the government and at the right price, wink, wink.

How are the people going to be MORE free than they were 100 years ago if the government is just a tool for corporate interest, hm?