The Burner Party

[lurker]

I suggested this in another thread, but it bears some talk on it's own

What would be the perfect platform? The ideal set of policies and principles that could move this country in a direction that would benefit everyone.

There's a lot of us, left, right and other here who can argue till we're blue in the face over this crap--but when we stop supporting someone elses principles, and start talking about how we really feel we find that we tend to agree more than disagree.

I think there's a reason for that.

I think the two-party system tends to force everyone to a middle ground because you HAVE to try to appeal to the greatest amount of people--and, as I've pointed out, we tend, in our personal beliefs, to agree more than disagree.

I think the huge divide that appears to be rending this nation apart is the result of radicalization of the parties.

And, for those of you on the left, I'm sorry, but I blame the left for this.

Why? Well because we grew up in a world that had far left nations. Nations that presented themselves(and still DO present themselves) as paragons of success, as a viable alternative. As such, the ideology did not find the derision and disgust that the spectacularly failed ideologies that also tried--often horribly--to make a go of it in the last century--like fascism and nazism.

So they gained a foothold, and were taught and respected, and, in the alarm of the powers that be at their spread became radicalized. As the people who learned about these ideologies got older and entered the workforce, academia, and politics, they brought that radicalization with them.

And as that happened, the right attempted to radicalize as well. But the ACTUAL right(as opposed to quasi-socialist totalitarian things like fascism and nazism) doesn't radicalize well. It's core beliefs don't lend themselves to mass movements--or, really, any kind of group activity beyond that which is absolutely necessary, so their radicalization went down weird paths--soc cons, neo cons, paleo cons, eco(omic) cons--that are actually very disparate groups that get lumped under 'conservative'

In short, they failed as an actual group, but managed to have a loud voice. That voice, coupled with an already radicalized left led to an American voice that found it very hard to meet in the middle.

The lefts drift ever leftward made things that were once squarely centrist 'right wing, and, in response, many of the very policies that made this country great, that put the 'e' in pluribus unum, were now derided as 'left wing'

And, over time, it left this giant hole in the center. Our political rhetoric no longer allows us to speak to each other because we use the same words to mean different things. It's only when we say who we are, and talk about what we, personally do, that we can see each other past the red/blue haze.

Now, I vote all over the place, I vote for those who will either expand on my freedoms or those that infringe on them least. I will admit that this generally gets me voting for those on the right side of things, and I think I explained this in the other thread, but I'll re-iterate

Republicans tend to talk tough about restricting things, how this or that is immoral and should be banned or forbidden or whatever. But they don't tend to legislate as much that way. Oh, some try, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. I think it's because they've got this 'individualism' thing as a core belief. They expect morality to be private, they expect you to help your damned self--that's why, when they try the big government route, they fuck up so badly.

Democrats tend to talk al about freedom, tolerance, equality and all that, and it SOUNDS good, but they tend to legislate restrictively--like the PMRC, smoking bans, speech codes, anti-porn legislation, that kinda thing. I think they do this because they think that it IS possible to change human behavior through the legislative process, and that if we'd only just do the things they put forth we'd all be happier--and we very well might.

But I wanna smoke. And I wanna look at a hot chick trussed up in rubber and tortured with a cattle prod. And I don't want the government telling me I can't--because it's good for me.

I don't want the government passing laws to save my soul or make me a better person, or make me healthier, cleaner, greener, or anything like that.

I want the government to make sure we've got good roads, make sure no one comes to kill us and........and?

And what? That's the point of this. And what? What do you think would make the country you live in better for YOU without kicking everyone else in the face?

If we can figure out something solid, we can use it as our own 'litmus test'. Send, bunches of us, what we come up with to any politician who seeks our vote--I say bunches because they don't listen to individuals, no matter how individualistic they might be.

Well?

[Toolmaker]

too late


Sorry for the bad news


My truck is packed and ready to go.


Dont know where i'm goin but i will not stay in the cities during this or show up to a fema camp when told to.


Seriously.. not much time left.. everyone better get their shit together and worry about whether or not we will get together and move in with the garbage warrior.


Hey Rebbi.. willing to take anyone with tools n seeds n such?

[can't sit still]

Lurker, you're plenty articulate about this. Part of the yin and yang of this is the focus on individualism. Any focus on individualism is focus that is subtracted from a focus on family and society. A focus on freedoms becomes a focus on freedom to do good and a freedom to do bad. Cuba has very limited personal freedom but has a commensurate limited crime rate. This is true to a point in Singapore also.
As Japan stifles individualism they stifle creativity. The Amish stifle individualism but focus on family. The problem, of course, is man. As the family is fractured, insecurity goes up. Greed seeks posessions to replace the missing love.
Mankind is hardwired to focus on the family and clan. Society tries to graft on the nation as an extended clan. It's not a good fit. We tend to align along more defined lines; race, creed color, interests, etc.
Forming a Burner Party might be like herding cats. Too much individualism

[ygmir]

Lurker, you're plenty articulate about this. Part of the yin and yang of this is the focus on individualism. Any focus on individualism is focus that is subtracted from a focus on family and society. A focus on freedoms becomes a focus on freedom to do good and a freedom to do bad. Cuba has very limited personal freedom but has a commensurate limited crime rate. This is true to a point in Singapore also.
As Japan stifles individualism they stifle creativity. The Amish stifle individualism but focus on family. The problem, of course, is man. As the family is fractured, insecurity goes up. Greed seeks posessions to replace the missing love.
Mankind is hardwired to focus on the family and clan. Society tries to graft on the nation as an extended clan. It's not a good fit. We tend to align along more defined lines; race, creed color, interests, etc.
Forming a Burner Party might be like herding cats. Too much individualism

well said...........

[Simon of the Playa]

Lurker, you know damn well i would'nt join a Party that would invite me...


(thank you Groucho for that all-encompassing philosophy)

[lurker]

Fortunately, Simon, you haven't been invited to join. You've been invited to babble--an activity that you, like me, seem to have no problem with.

CSS, you make an interesting point, but one that seems aimed at shooting oneself in the foot before the foot has been placed on the ground.

I am not suggesting that my focus should color this--though I will put forth points to further the idea of an extremely restricted government that lacks the power to restrict individual freedoms.

Humans tend first to consider what they think of as 'theirs'. Patriotism occurs when that consideration is able to be extended to larger groups whose direct relationship to the individuals self interest is not a readily visible chain of 'ownership'.

And what I ask here is how do we generate a set of principles that we can support enough to create or re-inforce that state.

Cats can be herded--you just need the right motivator....and we have the Tuna Guys.

[Simon of the Playa]

i agree Lurker, in a perfect world, the Libertarians would be a viable alternative.


minus Ralph Nader, of course.

[Toolmaker]

yum yum tuna



OK I go get tuna tataki now.

[can't sit still]

Lurker, I'm not saying that you shouldn't try. After all, people organize pretty well around camp themes. I tend to be a loner so it colors my outlook.
What planks did you have in mind for your platform?

[lurker]

Let's try extreme free speech. No government regulation on ANY speech. Now I don't mean 'no consequences', I simply mean that we don't need censored television, censored news...we don't need the government deciding what it's 'safe' for us to hear(I extend this to things like classified information--if the sitting government can't keep the secrets it wants to keep then that's THEIR fault, not the fault of the people who overheard or were told--do a better job)

We can still have libel and slander laws, but you'd have to REALLY show material damage.

Government out of the marriage sanctioning business. ANY combination of consenting adults should be able to draw up whatever type of domestic partnership contract they want--with whatever stipulations they want IN said contract. Just like any business does.

Government out of the business of legislating intoxicants. What a consenting adult chooses to do with their own body is their business--up to when it impinges on another's freedoms. So the government can still levy fines and prison for intoxicant misuse, it can still warn about effects, but it should not prohibit a free citizen from indulging in the intoxicant of their choice until it becomes a legal matter via misuse.

Likewise, governorship of one's body should be the exclusive province of the individual. This includes the sale or rental of the body for whatever reason. It includes the alteration of the body and the way in which an individual might choose to end their life.

There's a few....thoughts?

[ygmir]

the only slippery slope I see, is, the no regulation of tv..........
I only say that, since, for shock value, people tend toward gratuitous sex and violence. And, to get ratings, pretty much all outlets would end up there. The ones that would resist would be the very religious ones.....and, there's undue influence there, too.......

But,
I do agree with you. It's another one of my dilemmas..........

Good take on drugs.
Do what you want in your privacy/world, but,, as you say, influence others lives, and get an ass kicking. ie: DUI, injuries to others UI, and, no public medical help for addiction, or, assistance to addicted or mis-users that can't keep a job due to mis-use.........Probably even other more "draconian" measures related to mis-use, too......

In the intoxicant world, I'd say personal responsibility and reliance

would need to be very important, and tightly adhered to.

I might add to your slander plank, "tort reform".....we have become so litigious, that, people are afraid to do anything, and, waste so much
time, effort, and money just trying to avoid getting sued.......

It's interesting how "they" seem to think we need 10,000 or so individual laws to rule our lives......

It's quite a hole we've dug for ourselves, who'd got the ladder?

[lurker]

Regarding regulating TV, if the people want sex and violence, why can't they have it? What's wrong with that? If that's what makes money because people are watching, why not?

I think 'loser pays' would kill a lot of lawsuits.

[ygmir]

yeah, I know what you mean, Lurker.....
I guess with tv I just see that so many parents use it as a babysitter (not that I agree with doing that, but, it is quite prevalent), that, kids would, IMHO, get overexposed to sex and violence.

As easy as it is to say "good parents will control this", I'd bet, not.......

But, I'm really a fan of freedom, so, I can't make a good stand on either side of that argument........at least for me....

I agree with "loser pays", I think, though, so many people that win lawsuits should be losers..........they just get ignorant or sympathetic juries and hoodwink them........

we all see the million dollars for a sprained ankle verdicts........

I hate that........

[theCryptofishist]

A lot of the reporting on those cases is really weak, going for cheesy simplicity rather than to the meat of the issues. The outrage gets stirred up, but no one learns anything.

[lurker]

So far we've got three things--

REALLY Free Speech

Bodily Sovereignty

Loser Pays

Do we agree that these would be good?

Do we have more?

[Simon of the Playa]

SNACK FOOD GLORY HOLES FOR ALL!

[ygmir]

So far we've got three things--

REALLY Free Speech

Bodily Sovereignty

Loser Pays

Do we agree that these would be good?

Do we have more?

super small government:
no help, no hinderance, low taxes............

[Elderberry]

Let's try extreme free speech. No government regulation on ANY speech. Now I don't mean 'no consequences', I simply mean that we don't need censored television, censored news...we don't need the government deciding what it's 'safe' for us to hear(I extend this to things like classified information--if the sitting government can't keep the secrets it wants to keep then that's THEIR fault, not the fault of the people who overheard or were told--do a better job)

We can still have libel and slander laws, but you'd have to REALLY show material damage.

Government out of the marriage sanctioning business. ANY combination of consenting adults should be able to draw up whatever type of domestic partnership contract they want--with whatever stipulations they want IN said contract. Just like any business does.

Government out of the business of legislating intoxicants. What a consenting adult chooses to do with their own body is their business--up to when it impinges on another's freedoms. So the government can still levy fines and prison for intoxicant misuse, it can still warn about effects, but it should not prohibit a free citizen from indulging in the intoxicant of their choice until it becomes a legal matter via misuse.

Likewise, governorship of one's body should be the exclusive province of the individual. This includes the sale or rental of the body for whatever reason. It includes the alteration of the body and the way in which an individual might choose to end their life.

There's a few....thoughts?

I am totally amazed. I think this is the first time that I actually agree with almost everything you said.

JK

[lurker]

jkisha, that's my point--when we free ourselves of the limiting rhetoric we suddenly start tgo see that we're actually not that far apart--and are, in many cases, on the same page.

We only fight over the retards and crap policies that are all that we're offered--when it comes down to the real we're all here--in a not miniscule population that has tasted a very different society--a society we love so much that we refer to it as home--and the world outside seems a pale, dull, tedium that we endure until we can go home again.

Simon, do those snack food glory holes provide Drakes yankee doodles? 'Cos, I'd be down with that.

[Elderberry]

jkisha, that's my point--when we free ourselves of the limiting rhetoric we suddenly start tgo see that we're actually not that far apart--and are, in many cases, on the same page.

We only fight over the retards and crap policies that are all that we're offered--when it comes down to the real we're all here--in a not miniscule population that has tasted a very different society--a society we love so much that we refer to it as home--and the world outside seems a pale, dull, tedium that we endure until we can go home again.

Simon, do those snack food glory holes provide Drakes yankee doodles? 'Cos, I'd be down with that.

Ya, but that's where we differ, rhetoric and talking points aside, I feel that Obama will be the best person to deliver on all of the things we agree on. Hey, we are only given two choices, we have to make the best of what we have. I know what the Republicans have done the last eight years, and I'm ready for anything else. ANYTHING! It's got to be better than what we have had.

JK

[lurker]

You're in the wrong place. I'm not doing this for this race, I'm doing it for the next--and for congressional and local races, too.

Regardless of what you think of Obama or McCain, neither is the best to carry those propositions forward. One can be described, if you so wish, as the best among the choices set forth, but that does not actually make them the best.

And we need to find the best.

If we come up with a set of ideas that we can send to candidates we can see who is REALLY for us--and, since we are not a negiligble part of the population--particularly if we act in concert with each candidate--we might get somewhere.

It's gotta be better than simply accepting--and arguing with each other over-the particular paragons of FAIL that the powers-that-be allow us to choose from.