Do you belong to a political party?

not so much a point, as an interest in furthuring the understanding of the origin of government, and the purpose of political parties. so many people take their liberties for granted, and bitch about the system simply because they think it's hip and makes them individuals.

and the party system isn't about dividing the nation, though that is an extreme aspect of partisanship, and one that is generally avoided. the party system is a vital component of our government, in that it creates a diversity of opinion on the primary argument about the nature of government; size and scope of the central body. however, having too many parties has been shown to lead to factionalism, the source of extreme partisanship. james madison expressed his fears about factionalism in the federalist #10, and rightly so. however, any understanding of natural rights philosophy should help you to understand the need for a middleground of between diversity and having only one school of thought.


in short:

one party == oppression and natural rights violations

too many parties ==riot, insurrection, and extreme factionalism.

i suppose that would be my point, revo.

 

ok, and very well made. But nobody is talking about having "too many" parties. How bout just a 3rd, such as the Green party? The fact is that the 2 major parties intentionally shut out any 3rd parties (3rd voices, in effect) in order to retain their own monopolistic power over the electoral system, and consequently, U.S. policy in general. "Factionalism" may not be the greatest thing to achieve, but I'd much rather have that than what we have now, which is a 2party system (which is really 1 party) that favors corporate interests over the interests of you and me. And what was declared at this nation's founding? "We, the People" have ultimate jurisdiction over how the country is run, and what laws are passed, etc.

The powers that be today care nothing about the will of the People. To them, we are scum. We are the lower-rungs of society who never made it far enough up the corporate ladder to be deemed "worthy" of being provided the necessities of everyday life. To those in power, those who are not PART OF that power, are put under the same category as cattle. That is how the elite views us. We are not even human to them.

So even though what you say was *once* true, those ideas are obsolete under the current regime running the U.S., and they are seeking to subvert our Constitution and in fact place us and eventually the entire globe under a militarized police state.
Read Mark Crispin Miller's "Cruel and Unusual". He describes what is happening better than anyone I've read before or since.

The point is, things are rapidly changing and you better update your take on electoral politics and where we're headed as a dying democracy, which is exactly what it is...dying. What we're looking forward to is global Empire.

Resistance is now the only means to at least postpone it.

 

You bring up some interesting points here. It is vitally important to try to work within the system as much as possible and to do our best to resist tyrannical encroachments as much as possible while trying not to resort to violence unless our collective existance calls for it. One of the more important things that we can do is educate ourselves about the issues at hand, and to understand what government's role is in society. An excellent education forum out of Westminster, Maryland, the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship informs individuals not only about tax law, but also about the constitution and what our givernment's limitations are.

Back to the origional question-(As I've said countless times in this forum before) I have been a member of and an activist in the Libertarian Party for twelve years now. I find the philosophy to be closest with my beliefs. Despite the fact that I get criticisms from others for not supporting candidates who will win, I feel this is a better way to support the 'resistance' movement.

 

I am not registered with any party...

 

"It is vitally important to try to work within the system as much as possible"

This is one of the most trite things I've ever heard when talking to liberals. I agree that that would be true if the system wasn't rotten to the core, but it has become that, and besides...how many good hearted politicians have made those attempts and failed because of rightwing stonewalling? The top brass (the proverbial elite) always always always resists any attempts at making the economic system more equitable and sustainable for the working class and poor. Look at Ralph Nader for example. Not that this is exactly an endorsement for the man himself (although I voted for him in 2000 and 2004...yup I did ;-), but more an example of how the 2party political establishment systematically shuts out 3rd voices (in reality, 2nd voices).
In 2000, at the 2nd presidential "debate" in Boston, around 10,000 militant young activists marched to the debate site (at UMASS I believe) in protest of many things, namely corporate rule and the right for 3rd party candidates to participate in a public dialogue with the dems and repubs. I was there so I know some of what went down first hand, and it was one of the most uplifting actions I've ever been to.

Nader was there, WITH TICKET IN HAND attemping to enter the building to watch the debate as an audience member...not to debate on stage. Candidate Ralph Nader was threatened with arrest if he, not only entered the building, but also if he didn't immediately leave the premises. I'd say that this is a blatant and arrogant display of political corruption (at least in terms of democratic discourse) and a solid attempt at keeping the political process to the corporate owners: the republicans and democrats. Now, if both major parties agree to this, and obviously they do, wouldn't that logically conclude that both parties are in collusion with eachother to keep the power to themselves, contradicting the ideals of the Constitution by shuting out the voices of the working class and poor, who Mr. Nader is a loud proponent of?

I'd say it's pretty clear who gets to work "within the system" and who does not. So my response to liberals who say "work within the establishment to create change" is, How? They won't let us.

Condeleeza Rice will become the Secretery of State despite the incredibly convincing arguments brought up by Senator Barbara Boxer, and will continue to further erode everything we've traditionally held dear. Work within the system indeed.

 

I'm a regestered member of both the Green Party of Canada(Federal) and the Green Party of Ontario(Provencial) and try to be as involved as I can with matters of party policy.

I generally am skeptical of those who say crap like "they're all crooked" or "it's really just about the lesser of two evils" and refuse to take a stance. To me that's just another way of saying "I havn't educated myself on the issue or explored my options" or "I'd rather just be a cynic and poop on my democratic rights". The greatest office of democrocy is the office of the citizen and if your simply going to sit by and be idle while others make decisions for you then you rightfully deserve nothing more then an option between "the lesser of two evils". Cynisism is the most disgusting aspect of western democracy, in developed nations the world over people are dying in the streets simply in hope that they may one day have the priveledges we take for granted on a daily basis.

Note to americans, despite the supremicy of the 2 party system you still have alternatives, tired of tweedle dee and tweedle dum? THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Cliche aside, the minute you give up, you fail. The idea of a lost cause is simply that, an idea, nothing tangible about it. The same could be said about the great corporate entity, there may be some key players but in the end it aswell is faceless, an idea, an imagined system of self imposed slavery. Democraticly involved citizens on the other hand are tangible, unique entities. No one can tell me I don't exist, or my personal view are irrelevent, sure they can put it in the press, tell me I've failed, but who pays for the printing and distribution? The faceless entity scarring us with meaningless nothings. Left between the option of doing nothing and failing and doing something and still possibly failing I'll continue to chose the latter until my dying breath.

Hopeless Idealism? Sure, but can you present a better option?

 

I follow the old Groucho Marx maxim: I'd never join any organization that would have me as a member.

 

im registered libertarian. a mistake i made in 1998. i want to be independent and will change it...

altho i agree with libers. on social issues, i dont on issues such as capitalisum, public funding, etc.

 

people who vote suck, and i hold them personally responsible for supporting the devil's structuring of humanity. god gave me all the rules i need.

 

Wow. You're an idiot. And I know I say that to a lot of people, but you've just raised the bar. I mean...damn. You're stupid.

 

I actually think Barack Obama would be an excellent choice in 2008. The Democrats strategy for '08 is simple, we run whoever has the best shot at winning either ohio or florida. All the states that Kerry won will be safely blue for at least the next 4 years, we don't really need to worry about them too much. All that matters are Ohio and Florida.

Alex