The Necessity of Violent Politics?

[Phatscotty]

No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

I believe America should have the same tax policy regarding income that America had in the 1700's, the 1800's, and the early 1900's, that being there is no such thing as taxing income.

Sales tax/user fees. Give us a choice that reflects actual user/consumer. Mets, any further questions, just check it with 'does it take away other people's Liberty' If the answer is yes, don't bother. And don't bother trying to turn up the amps on your guilt trips either. There will be police and fire just as there was before the almighty all ruling government that takes it's money from your check before you even open the envelope...before you even cash it they already have their 20% cut. You simply don't understand that government is not the only answer to everything in the world.

I believe all workers should earn the fruit of their own labor, I believe everyone should be treated equally in that, let Freedom ring.

[Phatscotty]

It's always the same argument- "well! What about roads! You want roads don't you!" in regards to federal taxes. And when you look at the numbers you realize that it's bullshit.

I fucking HATE road taxes.

In the 1800s, Canada had land taxes in the form of servitude on the roads which was tied to how much land you owned. If you only owned a little land, you only had to spend 1 day per year working on the roads.

Then they changed the law to a cash-based tax. Subsistence farming became illegal overnight and cash crops now rule. We need to revert back to labor-based roads. I would prefer if they ended all the bullshit modern roads too. Make people drive cordorouy and clay roads so that they slow the f*ck down.

I just want to bomb the whole world. I can't imagine anything better than nuclear war right now. Or ever.

Sounds even worse than that one American politician who said that kids who get free lunches should pitch in to help around the school and help clean up the lunch room and sweep the floors afterwards.

[Dukasaur]

When you're having a bad day, it's best not to post. People years later will dredge up stupid shit that you said on a bad day and use it against you.

[PLAYER57832]

Guns work for those who already have power, not for those who lack it.

Building your physical power adds to your political power. The Qing government, which was militarily weak, had little say in anything and had its sovereignty repeatedly violated during invasions by foreign powers. By contrast, the CCP can demand the world recognize it as the legitimate government of China and has the power to block UN Security Council resolutions. It came from nothing and achieved this power by becoming and remaining armed to the extent that other actors cannot mess with it militarily - they must engage politically.

Other than the above quote, most of what you said is wildly irrelevant and I don't want to get bogged down in some pointless tangent.

MIght doesn't make right. That is the real point.

Non violence does, because the basis is not aggression, but resistance.

[mrswdk]

I believe we were talking about whether or not violence is necessary, not whether or not violence impacts on legitimacy.

[betiko]

We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Yes, there is the whole Ghandi approach. You can achieve political goals without blood.
ETA decided to drop their weapons and stop terrorist attacks (for how long?). Have basks achieved anything compared to catalunya in the aftermath towards independence in the past 50 years?? NO.
If you look at the ex yougoslavian conflict, all cases are different. Slovenia managed to become independent pretty pacifically. The circumstances were not the same as for croatia or bosnia...

Regarding israel/palestine:
There is something I never really understood... A % of israelis are arabs, another % of israelis are muslims.
Both jews and palestinians have legit claims about this land... Why try to divide? What solution to the problem do they see on the long run? Hamas and hezbollah have just been working hard on getting future generations of their children killed. Just brilliant guys. It all sounds very contructive and mature. Keep on blaming each other and retaliating like assholes. There are already arabs and muslims with israeli nationality. Jerusalem is triple holy land. Just stop being so selfish and segregationists on both sides. Get palestinian and israeli kids to play and interact together. Your generations are lost causes, if you love your kids more than your bullshit don t fill their hearts with hate.

Regarding USA: you guys should pay 65% taxes and shut up, if you re not happy earn more money in the first place and stop whinning, no one cares about your so called problem.

[danfrank666]

hmm... so your saying that all the Palestiniens have to do is not fight and suddenly Israel will let them live where they have for millenia? Why didn't Irael do that 60 years ago?

It's what they should have done in 1948. That's the way war is supposed to work.

What war do you believe was decided in 1948? WWII?.. well, its aftermath, yeah. How does Europe not wanting to deal with Jews and wanting a convenient way to get rid of them while seeming magnanomous have to do with forcing Palestiniens off the land they have occupied for millenia?

Jews were streaming into the mandate since the 1930`s the lucky ones that got deported before the gassing began. Then after all the camps were dissolved and sympathetic for gods people . israel was the solution. Yes violent politics , the solution today would be for the brotherhood in egypt to get involved , i mean thats why obama encouraged the revolution. and today in chicago yall know who`s there right and san francisco yall remember her too ...support for the Palestinians. It only took 66 years for the americans to get there heads out of there asses. Unless the Palestinians get some meaningful support , Its just another genocide this time being committed by israel , FUCKIN HYPOCRITS.....

[PLAYER57832]

I believe we were talking about whether or not violence is necessary, not whether or not violence impacts on legitimacy.

So you believe necessity is born of wants, not legitimate gripes?

I say legitimacy means necessity.

[mrswdk]

RIDDLE ME THAT, BATTMAN!!

[Phatscotty]

We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Yes, there is the whole Ghandi approach. You can achieve political goals without blood.
ETA decided to drop their weapons and stop terrorist attacks (for how long?). Have basks achieved anything compared to catalunya in the aftermath towards independence in the past 50 years?? NO.
If you look at the ex yougoslavian conflict, all cases are different. Slovenia managed to become independent pretty pacifically. The circumstances were not the same as for croatia or bosnia...

Regarding israel/palestine:
There is something I never really understood... A % of israelis are arabs, another % of israelis are muslims.
Both jews and palestinians have legit claims about this land... Why try to divide? What solution to the problem do they see on the long run? Hamas and hezbollah have just been working hard on getting future generations of their children killed. Just brilliant guys. It all sounds very contructive and mature. Keep on blaming each other and retaliating like assholes. There are already arabs and muslims with israeli nationality. Jerusalem is triple holy land. Just stop being so selfish and segregationists on both sides. Get palestinian and israeli kids to play and interact together. Your generations are lost causes, if you love your kids more than your bullshit don t fill their hearts with hate.

Regarding USA: you guys should pay 65% taxes and shut up, if you re not happy earn more money in the first place and stop whinning, no one cares about your so called problem.

65%...spot on! That's what it would take for America to pay for what it currently spends. I'm not so sure the remaining 35% would even begin to cover the rest of the basics our government does not currently provide, but I suspect if Americans paid 65% of their time, wages, labors, and salaries, we would probably expect everything to be provided by the government. I suppose that will be the path towards paying 100% in taxes at the end, and nobody has to worry about anything because everybody will be taken care of to the point nobody will work. That's when the whips and chains come out.

[DaGip]

I want to choke you all.

[DoomYoshi]

I want to choke my chicken.

[DaGip]

I want to choke my chicken.

[Gillipig]

We got the Israel-Palestine showdown, which has brought out a great number of opinions and emotions.

In favor of Israel, you have the 'what would you do' argument: you're being attacked, so why not attack back?
In favor of Hamas/Palestine, you got the 'they took our land, and we have no other(?) political means to secure proper compensation or whatever' argument.


Let's step outside their conflict, and use a new approach with the following question:

Would the African-Americans have been able to lift the Jim Crows laws and attain equal political rights without resorting to violence?

Sometimes a velvet revolution works sometimes it doesn't, much depends on the number of supporters, if you've got 90% of the population on your side then there's no need for violence, if you're a minority however violence might be your only way of succeeding, it may also lead to the complete opposite with increased discrimination and many deaths to your kind/supporters.

[PLAYER57832]

No, it's not possible I am one of them, as I do not want to take anything from other people

So you believe that the tax rate should be zero? People should not be forced to pay for any government services, including police and fire protection?

I believe America should have the same tax policy regarding income that America had in the 1700's, the 1800's, and the early 1900's, that being there is no such thing as taxing income.

There was also no such thing as a universal road system, college available to all who qualified, truly implemented pollution and safety controls....etc.

In other words, you want us to use a pricing structure that worked when there were far fewer items available.

Sales tax/user fees. Give us a choice that reflects actual user/consumer.

Most things currently provided by the government don't have that immediate and direct connection. Even when they do, such as in tolls for roads, it often only "works" because of artificial limits. Tolls "work" because the government is then prohibited from maintaining "competing" roads, just as an example.

[Mets, any further questions, just check it with 'does it take away other people's Liberty' If the answer is yes, don't bother. And don't bother trying to turn up the amps on your guilt trips either. There will be police and fire just as there was before the almighty all ruling government that takes it's money from your check before you even open the envelope...before you even cash it they already have their 20% cut. You simply don't understand that government is not the only answer to everything in the world.

I believe all workers should earn the fruit of their own labor, I believe everyone should be treated equally in that, let Freedom ring.

You want to claim that anything that might benefit someone else is a "taking", but that is an utterly false paradigm. It is the paradigm of the "Tragedy of the commons" failure. The real paradigm is that many, many things are inherently beneficial to ALL, and necessary for all to have a stable lifestyle. Roads, police, fire.. absolutely, though despite your claims that "they will continue", these things actually ARE being threatened all over because people don't want to increase taxes to pay for them. Another example you grudgingly admit to is education. The two you continually attempt to deny are basic research and limits on pollution and safety. That is, when pushed, you grudgingly admit that some regulations are needed in those areas, but then launch into attacking basically every example that exists... and a whole bunch of "examples" that exist only in your mind.

[Phatscotty]

Of course taking money from someone and giving it another 'benefits' the receiver. Why can't you admit it the pain a person feels when their weekly paycheck for a full time job at 11.25 an hour is $450 and the take home is $328. THAT's why people cannot live on low wages! And is that really your argument? Can't keep what you earn, the fruits of your own time and labor, because it 'benefits' someone else when they get your money???

It's funny you guys jump to roads, police, fire....like it's not also public unions, plush pension plans, the 'stadium' taxes, heck, the government wastes billions and billions of dollars, how about we start there, before we get into 'NO POLICE OR FIREMEN ANYWHERE!!!" And as if the only way you can gain tax for roads is by taxing income. I don't understand why you continue addressing me like an anarchist. You know I'm not (even if it is the picture you MUST paint for yourself?), so really your post doesn't mean much. Gee whiz, about the 'worst' thing I've called for is balanced budgets.

LULZ on U

[shickingbrits]

Non-violent politics are no longer possible.

According to SOP of the CIA, Ghandi would be infiltrated and his plans frustrated from the inside. The agents would spark violence leading to retaliation. That violence would be associated with Ghandi and the movement would take on a new meaning.

Tiananmen wouldn't happen these days. Instigators would initiate violence and the Chinese would then step in to "protect" citizens from the violent protestors.

Conversely, a nation which wishes to oppose the US non-violently can't really do so either. In Libya, Syria, Ukraine the CIA just kills innocent people until the government responds and then blames the government for the violence and the reaction.

China's shore faces US allies, any fishing incident is cited as Chinese imperialistic ambitions in western media. When a man self-immolates, the starkness of it appears under pointed headlines. A marine self-immolates on the national mall, and he's quietly called insane.

War is based on moral authority. The joint chiefs of staff agreed to a plan to engage in terrorist acts on the US and hold Castro responsible, but was stopped by Kennedy.

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

If people are willing to engage in war killing potentially millions of people, then wouldn't the motive to do so be enough to engage in a bit of sabotage to get the ball rolling?

Control the information and you can control the moral authority.

MLK became more militant towards the end of his life, the best a non-violent nation or person can do is take an absolute and unequivocal stance towards non-violence from the outset, gain friends in the media and hope not to get assassinated.