Forum Post: There Should Not Be 1 President Let Each State Be Independent And Pick It's Own Leader
Posted 12 years ago on April 28, 2012, 6:40 a.m. EST by whatthefffff
(8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
USA 50 states each different each with it's own vision and way of life Let each state be governed by the people who live in the state We don't need a president Keep the pentagon but tear down the white house and capitol
Libertarian idealism, no Federal Government....or that cute saying they have, 'A Federal Government small enough to fit down the bathtub drain'
Talk about clueless.
Yay!!!
A new improved civil war!!!!
Let them all battle it out! May the biggest, richest State win!!
Will this be on pay per view?
Wow, biggest piece of bullshit I've heard this week.
Your an idiot.
@nobnot said: "Your an idiot."
Priceless.
Hahahahaha.... !!!!
Have you ever read the Constitution? The 10th amendment in particular?
You mean a governor?
Yeah that's a great idea for strength unity and continuity. ( NOT )
WE NEED TO SEE? 50 militaries? Um some how I think this is a non-issue and perhaps a practical joke.
What a horror.
You think we have unity today? Since when did the Left join the Right? Or did the Right join the Left?
Europe is broken into many countries each with their own military. You would call Europe a horror?
Europe is Europe it "grew-up" that way. And yes ( horror ) in a way - but they are still working on uniting in common cause so it has the possibility of getting better as they go along - "They" Like "WE" just need to allow and promote Their People to take a full participation. They like We need to put a proper leash on business.
And about "OUR" ( USA ) missing UNITY ?
Thank God for the Birth of the movements against greed corruption and crime. As we are starting to see unity in common cause beginning to take place.
Europe is not a horror.
Full participation will never lead to everyone magically agreeing on a singular economic and social system. Why would full participation ever get the Left to become Right or the Right to become Left!?!
And you are just not paying attention if you think the US is beginning to form a single ideology that everyone agrees with. The US is more polarized than ever.
As you say - "Full participation will never lead to everyone magically agreeing on a singular economic and social system"
What full participation WILL do is provide the input of the American People. Not the input of the corporations ( special interests ).
What full participation WILL do is provide the input of the American People. To fully represent the Democratic Process and the rule of the majority. ( not the rule of the .001 or .01 or .1 ).
And after everyone fully participates what you will find is a third want socialism, a third want unfettered capitalism, and a third want a mixture of the two.
Now what?
Well in situations like that.
I believe the technical term is discussion and compromise.
You end up with a blend. Kind of like the USA is a blend of peoples.
The process is no different right now - except right now the people are largely excluded. That does not reflect the intent of the Constitution of these here United States.
Why do I have to compromise when I can instead just choose to participate in the system I want and let others who want a different system choose to participate in the system they want?
What benefit is there to forcing the Right to live with Left policies and vice versa?
Should we force everyone to compromise and live with the same cell phone, computer, car, clothes, and house?
People should be able to choose their economic system just like they choose their cell phone plan:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-make-america-socialist-and-get-100-to-go-al/
How in the world would something like that be supposed to work. Your proposal - on the face of it - makes no sense what so ever.
Your Query : Should we force everyone to compromise and live with the same cell phone, computer, car, clothes, and house?
Makes even less sense.
Did you read it? My proposal is supposed to work the way I describe it in that post.
No sorry the idea is ludicrous - give every one the option of whether they want to pay taxes or not? Allow every one to choose the system they want to participate in?
No Tax option = 100% approval = Government collapse = Chaos/anarchy
If 100% of the population does not want to pay taxes then why should everyone pay taxes? If nobody wants it, then who is it benefiting?
I think that you will find only a small percentage want a system where there are no taxes. In fact, Massachusetts (or some other New England state) recently had a ballot initiative to abolish the state income tax and it didn't pass. So less than 50% there want no taxes.
Roughly 30% of the population views socialism favorably. They would much rather live in a socialist system than in a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist system.
And less than 30% want a tax-free, anarcho-capitalist system.
What's wrong with letting each person choose the system they want?
Current system = Nobody gets what they want = Everyone is unhappy = Out-of-control government with ineffective social programs and imperial wars = Chaos/misery/inefficiency
Grow-up. Sometimes you have to do things for the benefit of others. That is part of being a family, that is a part of having friends, that is being a part of your community, that is a part of life.
"Socialism is just that a way to look at the world...Capitalism deals with money and business. Every society has to deal with its capitalism/business/money."
Come on, are you really that uninformed? Why would you debate someone about a topic you don't know anything about?
Socialism is not a philosophy. It is an economic system that deals with money and business just like capitalism does. The difference is that the means of production are publicly owned in socialism and they are privately owned in capitalism.
The police are socialist companies. They are publicly owned. Microsoft is a capitalist company. It is privately owned. A socialist economic system is where every or most companies are publicly owned. A capitalist economic system is where every or most companies are privately owned.
You can learn how a socialist system works here:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/1-replace-capitalism-with-democracy/
If I was a socialist and you were a capitalist, what benefit is there to forcing you to participate in a socialist system?
Since we can have 2 competing economic systems in the same geographic location just like we can have 2 competing cell phone plans or house styles or clothing styles or car types in the same geographic location, what benefit is there to forcing everyone to have to participate in the same economic system?
What does the economic system you choose have to do with family and friends? Why can't members of a family or friends choose different economic systems?
Really bad analogy : Socialism is just that a way to look at the world and every ones place in it and in relationship to each other.
Capitalism deals with money and business trade and goods and services.
Every society has to deal with its capitalism/business/money.
So as there are a certain number of societal systems - Socialist Fascist Democratic whatever etc etc etc etc etc - they all have their capitalistic element.
What kind of creepy family and friends do you have where everyone is required to choose the same thing?
Do you all wear the same clothes, drive the same car, have the same furniture?
You should look into North Korea. They have a similar love for your regimentation.
The way I do things to benefit my friends and family is by allowing them to choose how they want to live their life, not coercing them into a system they don't want to be a part of.
Are U bizarre MUCH???
Creepy family? What??? Because we care for each other and our fellow man? ( YOU ARE SICK )
You keep coming back to some stupid reference: Do you all wear the same clothes, drive the same car, have the same furniture?
What in the hell that has to do with paying taxes - I just do not know.
Then you compare ( I have no idea what ) to North Korea. Are you HIGH???
Your last comment sounds strangely based in reality : (part of it anyway )
The way I do things to benefit my friends and family is by allowing them to choose how they want to live their life
Because you go on to: not coercing them into a system they don't want to be a part of. ( as that sounds like North Korea )
You have a truly unique perspective of the world. You can keep it.
We have no income tax in Florida and lots of people move here specifically because of that.
Yes, choice is good. So people should have greater choice than just different state income tax rates. They should be able to choose between entirely different economic systems and do so without having to move to another state.
Do you know where that dividend came from? It came from an honest state government returning un-needed tax money collected from the cost of living fee's on food gas clothing rent housing insurance etc etc ( taxes in another form are still taxes ). Hell a state volunteered tax return. Who woulda figured?
[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (2409) from Miami Beach, FL 10 minutes ago
Depends on where you live. If you live in South Florida, around Miami, the cost of living is fairly high. If you live in the more rural areas in North Florida it can be pretty low.
If you live in Alaska then the state actually pays you a dividend. ↥like ↧dislike permalink
Whats the cost of living like? I know Alaska is the same way and you pay an arm and a leg for everything because that is where their operating funds come from.
Depends on where you live. If you live in South Florida, around Miami, the cost of living is fairly high. If you live in the more rural areas in North Florida it can be pretty low.
If you live in Alaska then the state actually pays you a dividend.
Why does the way of life a person chooses have to be dependent on geographic location? Why can't a single state offer many choices of lifestyles regardless of where they live?
The Right should be able to live within a Right system and the Left should be able to live within a Left system and the Left and Right should not have to be segregated. They should be able to live as neighbors.
Here is one way to make that possible:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-to-make-america-socialist-and-get-100-to-go-al/
And why are you so against periods?
Thats is why I always favor states rights over a repressive war mongering central agency.
But you are never going to get everyone within a single state to agree on a single system just like you are never going to get everyone within the country to agree on a single system. People should be able to choose what system they want to participate in regardless of the state they live in.
The Left shouldn't force the Right to live with Left policies and vice versa.
I guess it is more likely to have a revolution in a state than in a country since it is a smaller size and you can move people in with similar ideologies like what libertarians are trying to do with the free state project. But the problem still exists.
I think it would be much easier to get everyone to agree to choose their own system instead of trying to take over a state and converting everyone who lives there into a single economic system.
So vote on it
And which way would you vote? Would you vote for the right for people to be able to choose between multiple competing economic systems without having to move to another state or country?