Slashdot Mirror

You're not arguing about car accidents and cancer, you're arguing about 2 slightly different forms of cancer, that are formed in basically the same way, and have basically the same effects.

Really? Representative democracy and tyranny are formed the same way, and have the same effects? Pray tell, what exactly distinguishes them?

If you think that we're gonna to have socialized healthcare, and socialized heatlhcare means a drastic reduction in quality.. how is that not a threat?

That's not what I think. If you can prove that socialized health care will result in a "drastic reduction of quality" for all concerned then we'll have a debate. I'm not going to debate a hypothetical situation or unproven assumption. One thing is a fact though: the US spends way more money on health care as a percentage of our GDP than the majority of other countries, yet our standard is lower. We spend more of our GDP than Germany, but Germany is still able to provide superior care to all of their citizens, even though we spend more and don't do that. This means that it's possible to both spend less and provide better care then we currently are. The entire system is a sham when a doctor is able to submit a bill for $150 for a Tylenol and expect it to get paid. I assume that would mean that I could walk in with a bottle of 100 Tylenol as payment for a $15,000 procedure, but for some reason it doesn't work that way.

I never said i wanted to remove this government and install a new one, i said, i want to limit what government can do.

No, you said that representative democracy and tyranny are the same thing, that it doesn't matter what you call them because they produce the same result. I wonder what someone who had to live under Pol Pot or Robert Mugabe would say if you told them that you live in a tyranny because we vote on issues and there's always a side which loses the vote. If you asked them if that was the same thing they faced, I wonder what they would say.

As for calling him a socialist.. so what?

Because he's not even close. Ask an American socialist if Obama is following their ideals. He's no more a socialist than he is a communist, so why all the bullshit rhetoric?

We've got 6 or 7 parties. We've got the:

Republican party:
http://www.gop.com/

Democratic party:
http://www.democrats.org/

Libertarian party:
http://www.lp.org/

Green party:
http://www.gp.org/index.php

Socialist party:
http://www.sp-usa.org/

Constitution party:
http://constitutionparty.com/

If you look at the platforms and positions of these parties you'll find a lot of diversity of opinion. Unfortunately, only the most popular positions of the first two parties listed will ever be likely to see the light of day. If only there were some way to change that...

Green Party: "Greens are pushing for instant run-off voting, proportional representation, and other ways to give minorities of all kinds a greater say in government" [1]

Libertarian Party: ""The problem is that we are a minority party in a winner-take-all voting system," said Mr. Redpath, urging party activists to support "electoral reform" aimed at creating a system of proportional representation." - LNC Chairman William Redpath [2]

Socialist Party: "We continue our involvement with the Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party and FairVote/CFER (Californians For electoral Reform)" [3] (PDF)

You're assuming many Nader voters would have voted for Gore if their only option was Gore or Bush, or that Gore is much better for these voters than Bush. Given the choice between only a D or a R, they'd rather spoil their ballots than vote for either. It's like a choice between Stalin and Pol Pot. One may be worse than the other, but both have crossed the line so far that some are not prepared to support them.

It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in."

(how often do you hear people in the USA discussing the pro's of Communism or Islamic extremism?).

Every single day in the USA. Ever heard of the Communist Party or the Socialist Party? Ever notice how many different mosques there are in the USA, of which several DO condone violence?

Maybe YOU need to do a little historic research before you hit the Submit button.

Rather than support the ACLU, the people would be much better off in supporting any organization which seeks to throw BOT the Democrats AND Republicans out of office. 99% of Congress (both House and Senate) need to be voted out as well as the President. The same thing also needs to happens to just about all state and most local governments. For decades we have been electing both Democrats and Republicans to office only to watch our taxes go higher and higher, be subjected to more and more rules and regulations, and watch our voices get weaker and weaker. I for one am tired of the endless crap being spewed out by the Democrats and Republicans. Isn't it time yet for alternative parties such as those listed below?

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/


With the Democrats and Republicans in office, more and more people have quit registering to vote because they believe that it does not matter which one of these candidates get into office (People are going to be screwed each way). This is one reason I blog this message because I want people to spread the word that we actually do have a choice. I believe that throwing out the Republican-Democrats is a better way to obtain justice than what Marvin Heemeyer did in Granby, Colorado (although I do not frown on his efforts to punish local officials). Another way people can have influence in doing away with the oppressive governments in the P.S.A. (Police States of Amerika) is by excercising their powers to judge the law as well as the facts when serving on a jury. People should look at the Fully Informed Jurors Association . In the P.S.A. we will only gain ou freedom by TAKING IT BACK from those who have usurped the rightful power of citizens.

As a Founding Father of the United States, he recognized the need for a REASONABLE patent and copyright system in order to make sure that authors and product creators were able to recoup the costs of creating their works. The patent and copyright system today rewards mostly corporations. Individual creators are left out. As a Founding Father of the U.S. he also stood for for individual right. This is something tht very few mainstream party affiliated politicians think about today. If we want to try to restore the protections of our right by voting, then we need to vote for members of alternative political parties such as the ones listed alphabetically below: Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/ [constitutionparty.org] Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/ [greenparty.org] Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/ [reformparty.org] Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/ [sp-usa.org] Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/ [veteransparty.us] Even though I am not a Christian, I prefer the Constitution Party. I can deal with looking at 10 Commandments posted in a court room, they will not jump out and shoot me. I can even stand still while leaders pray as long as I am not forced to join in. If you do not like the ideas put out by the Constitution Party, look at a party that fits what you believe in. Just don't fall for the bullshit spewed by the Democrat or Republican parties. We already know what they are about (taking bribes and serving their special interests). As another not, we can also judge the law as well as the facts. Visit http://www.fija.org/ .

Benjamin Franklin was an absolute genius. Not only was he responsible for the rediscovery of electricity. he was also responsible for many other scientific advances of historic proportions. Not only that, he was also partly responsible for drafting the founding document of one of the greatest nations in history. Unfortunately he would mostly be fighting mad at how his genius has been misused by the main two political parties of today along with their corporate and special interest paymasters. These entities have distorted the intent to help pay for innovation with laws that has brought innovation to a standstill. Both Democrats and Republicans have destroyed the legal protections which the U.S. Constitution provided for the inhabitants of the U.S. In fact, the U.S.A. should be no longer known by that name. It is more appropriate to call it the "Police States of Amerika." With not only free speech stifled by the abuse of copyright and patents, property rights are now virtually unprotect as any major corporation can have a local government force people to give up their own land for a pittance. Things can be changed though. It has to be done by people not doing what they normally do. In order to make any significant change for the better and have laws passed that protect freedom to hack and free software, people will have to register to vote. Not only will have have to register, they will have to register under an ALTERNATIVE political party instead of the republicrats or demicans. There are many parties out there that fit the different agendas of many who are Slashdotters. These parties are listed below in alphabetical order:

Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.org/
Green Party http://www.greenparty.org/
Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/
Reform Party http://www.reformparty.org/
Socialist Party http://www.sp-usa.org/
Veteran's Party http://www.veteransparty.us/

Some of these parties I disagree with, however, I list them to give voice to diverse ideas. Isn't it time to register and vote for candidates based on their ideas and character instead of by which one will stand a chance of winning in order to keep out the "greater evil?" The corrupt, bullshit and lie spewing Democrats are just as bad as the corrupt bullshit and lie spewing Republicans. There are much better choices. Get behind them and support them while we have a few legal protections left.

Or maybe it would be called the Libertarian party, because they support the reduction of government influence (in the form of intellectual property laws) in the free movement of information and commerce, and an increase in emphasis on the rights of the individual?

One would think so, at least. Or not? If we look at the actual american libertarian party platform we find that they are strongly in support of privacy rights, like the swedish piracy party. However, their approach to privacy rights seems to be to remove the government from any form of personal identification and tracking-- I.E. from the language in their platform, they only seem interested in protecting people from privacy violations by the government. This means that they would strongly support one of the piracy party's planks-- repeal of data retention laws. However they would would most likely reject the other privacy-related plank (passing laws to protect privacy), because while such laws are intended to protect the individual, it would be a government and thus probably seen by libertarianism as detrimental to the individual in the large. Aside from this the American libertarian party has, as far as I can tell, no opinion on intellectual property law at all.

If we look at the American Communist party we find they are too busy waxing their moustaches and trying to kill pesky moose and squirrel to really tell us much here. The American Socialist Party meanwhile doesn't seem to have explicit positions on either privacy or intellectual property that I can see.

I guess basically the thing to take away here is that there's this old dichonomy between "communism" and "private property rights" ("libertarianism"?), and it's completely bunk. It is a false choice, a straw man constructed by extremists of both positions. The two alternatives here may be fairly contradictory, but if you try to split the world between them things get confusing awfully fast. This is nowhere more clear than in the case of "intellectual property", because intellectual property is a form of property created by the government. Think about that for a moment. This cuts directly across the boundary of state control versus individual property rights-- it's something that wasn't a form of property until the government chose to interfere in the economy.

Of course, even that's a little complicated, because of the question of whether intellectual property is even property now. The head of the RIAA apparently thinks it is. I for one don't really think it is, and language of the the U.S. constitution (which frames IP "rights" as government-granted priviliges, state-issued monopolies), seems to agree.
Ah well.

We have more than to parties in the U.S. as well.

We've got the Greens.

We've got the Libertarians.

We've go the Socialists.

We've got the Communists. (Who seem to have abandoned the hammer for a gear, but they're sticking to the sickle.)

We've got the Constitution Party.

Now, there is some collusion between the two entrenched parties and the media to create a de facto two-party system. Furthermore, plurality voting creates the environment for a two-party system.

Some are willing to fight it.

-Peter

You are correct that many of Hitler's social policies were leftist or left-leaning. For instance, Hitler enforced anti-smoking and anti-pollution legislation.

However, although I still contend that Hitler was not a strict vegetarian (and I'm a vegan, so I know this means never consuming any animals or animal products, such as cow's milk or chicken's eggs), it doesn't matter unless he was a vegetarian for leftist moral reasons. As a leftist vegan, I object to the consumption of animals because of the violence required to sustain a non-vegetarian diet. Hitler obviously did not object to violence.

(A good number of right-wing moral vegetarians exist in the Matthew Scully mold.)

I don't see "politicalcompass.org" as a valid source.

Fair enough.

anything that limits free speech is censorship

What would you like to say that political correctness prevents you from saying?

Perhaps just socialism

The Democrats are not socialists. Compare and contrast the Democratic Party platform with the Socialist Party platform. (Well, who isn't against police brutality?)

Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist

The problem is that the American voting system discourages people from voting for what they believe in, and forces them to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The accounting error that placed George W. Bush in office would not have been an issue had a large segment of the liberal population not decided to vote -- for once -- by their consciences. Ralph Nader won about 2.7% of the popular vote in 2000 (Buchanan, the next most popular conservative to Bush, took less than 0.5 percent of the popular vote from Bush). It isn't unreasonable to assume that almost 100% of those people who voted for Nader would have preferred Gore to Bush. If even one percent had voted strategically (for the lesser of two evils), the Florida fiasco would not have been an issue.

I'm a firm proponent of electoral reform, so that people can vote their consciences without jeopardizing their position and letting the greater of two evils seize the power. However, until that time, I hope that the American public votes insincerely so that we don't end up with a repeat of the 2000 election.

The USSR was not socialist. I can say "I don't believe in Jesus, Mary, or God, but I am still a Catholic" and that doesn't make me a Catholic.

Human rights are the foundation of socialism; Gorbachev was a true socialist and in fact considers himself a Leninist. People hate Gorbachev because he did things wrong; rather than bring about socialism in a slow, stable way, he introduced all these reforms all at once which is what made the Soviet Union devolve into capitalism (which was really just its ultimate state anyway; the Russian government today is essentially the same Russian government of the Soviet Union, but without the socialist rhetoric).

People there are much worse off under capitalism than they were under state capitalism. Socialism never entered into the picture, although Gorbachev tried to create it. Socialism is about human rights, it's about making everyone's life better off all the time, it's about freedom, and the end of exploitation. "Anti-socialist" means that which gets rid of human rights, eg capitalism, fascism, despotism, feudalism.

Gorbachev was a socialist. Kruschev was not. End of story.

However, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics might have been Soviet (whatever that means) but it was most certainly not a Union composed of Republics, and it was not Socialist.
I wouldn't call the USSR socialist either, but it was definitely not Soviet!
The soviets were councils or groups of ordinary citizens. During the first stages of the Russian Revolution, workers got together in these soviets, took over their factories, threw out their bosses and started running the factories themselves. Peasants also organized and took over production of the feudal estates. I believe soldiers also organized and quit fighting WWI. It was truly a revolution, and you can why the capitalist powers that be were terrified and have spent billions of dollars making sure it would never happen again! (For a short, thoughtful summary of the Russian Revolution I recommend the section in Daniel Guerin's "Anarchism".)
There were two major groups of revolutionaries: the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky and the anarchists. The Bolsheviks argued for taking over state power and using it in the interests of the workers and to defend the revolution. The anarchists argued against dictatorship, even dictatorship of the proletariat; they wanted to run the economy in a bottom-up way through federations of these workers' organizations, not through central planning.
Unfortunately, the Bolsheviks won. The soviets, the unions and peoples' councils were destroyed - all authority was taken by the Communist Party. So the USSR was not soviet.
As for the term "socialist", it depends on what you mean by the term, of course. Everyone from the Nazis (National Socialists) to the USSR to the U.S. Socialists (one of their mottos: production for use, not profit - I like that!) have all used that word in very different ways. I think of "socialist" as an economy based on co-operation, not competition and a political system based on democracy, not tyranny like capitalist "democracy" where you get one vote for each dollar you have.
The USSR called itself socialist to claim it worked for the people. The U.S. called the USSR socialist to claim that socialism meant central planning, a one-party state, and political mass killings.
I don't mind being called a socialist, but what's important are issues and ideas, of course, not names.
By the way, I enjoyed your post, even though I went off on my own ideas.

There are several opposition parties, of which the most well-known are the Libertarians, the the Reform Party, the the Greens, and the Socialists. I myself am a Libertarian, but I would rather that you vote for any opposition party rather than voting for the regime (Democrat or Republican) or not voting at all.

Some Americans feel that it is "throwing their vote away" to vote for a candidate who is not likely to win -- and instead vote for the "lesser of two evils" among the Democrat and Republican. The problem with this is that, as you point out, the Dems and Reps really are not very different! Because of this, a vote for either a Democrat or Republican is basically a vote for their combined regime -- which, if you don't support the regime, is worse than throwing your vote away. Voting for even the tiniest of opposition parties, in contrast, registers your opposition to the Dem/Rep regime, and brings us closer to a real political debate in this country -- even if your candidate doesn't win this time.

Americans, please help bring real issues, real debate, and real differences back to our nation's political process. Give up on the Democrat/Republican regime. Vote for the opposition.

From the United States Socialist Party's official platform:

"We call for free and open access to information, including the public ownership of all large data bases, so that access cannot be restricted to those able to pay transaction fees."

This, along with what can be inferred from the party's other strongly pro-labor, anti-corporate policies, means that existance of even a moderately-sized Socialist minority could help prevent the passage of laws such as this one which abridge our constitutional rights in order to placate the wealthy minority.
This is clearly only one particular aspect of the Socialist party, which has a very complex platform, but I encourage those unhappy with the current two-party system or simply curious about the alternatives to research the party themselves. Its official web site can be found at http://www.sp-usa.org/.
Also, for clarification, the United States Socialist Party is not in any way affiliated with "socialism" or "communism" as practiced in such totalitarian states as the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, or Castro's Cuba. The Socialist Party rather stands for Democratic Socialism, a policy which has been widely implemented and very successful in many European nations.

And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!

Official political party sites

Democratic National Committee

Democratic Socialists of America

Green Parties of North America

Labor Party

Libertarian Party

Natural Law Party

Reform Party

Republican National Committee

Socialist Party USA

Workers Party

Official candidate sites

Gary Bauer

Bill Bradley

Pat Buchanan

George W. Bush

Steve Forbes

Al Gore

Orrin Hatch

Alan Keyes

John McCain

Donald Trump

• Libertarian Party
  
• Reform Party
  
• Green Party
  
• Socialist Party
  

This isn't a reply to the parent message, but instead a reply to the parent message's replies. If find it easier to just say this once than to reply individually to all of them.

Now, I don't remember whether he's a socialist, a communist, or what, but I know he's ONE of those things, and it sure ain't Democracy.
By Marx's definition, a true Communist society can't exist without Democracy, seeing as how there isn't any government in a true Communist society and the people rule themselves. This, of course, is a bit too utopian, which is why you don't see any true Communist societies. What you see instead is the totalitarian Leninist/Stalinist states (i.e.: Soviet Union) and Social Democrat states (i.e.: the majority present-day Europe).

while every country that has even remotely adopted Marxist dogma is now deep in poverty.
and
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world.
The majority of Europe is Socialist. Is France a failure? Is Sweden a failure? Is Germany a failure?

My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it.

Since when does hard work equate with being wealthy in our society? My Grandfather worked as a mason for most of his life - which I consider fairly laborous work - and he didn't die rich. Now compare some upstart twenty-something year-olds that make a web portal and become millionaires overnight.

I can't believe how many people I've heard compare Communism/Socialism and Democracy, thinking the two are incompatible. Communism and Socialism are economic states! Democracy is a governmental state! The U.S. is a Capitalist Republic, whereas the Soviet Union was a Socialist Dictatorship. There is nothing that says you can't have a Socialist Democracy or Capitalist Dictatorship.
Another thing that really erks me is when I see kids at school (or even adults) talking about how much they love living in a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic. We democratically elect people to rule over us. We as citizens don't have say in government decision, we just choose who does say (and the polls tend to be biased towards a selection of only two or three people).
If anyone is actually interested, here's the websites for the U.S. Communist Party and the U.S. Socialist Party. You'll notice neither of them talk about destroying the current free-market system everyone here appears to be enjoying, but instead more realistic goals like increasing Union presence, equal hourly pay according to job (i.e.: how much labor is required to effectively work in this field), etc.
-Chris Andreasen