Conquer Club

One of the reasons that I do not like to know or think about politics is because of my hate of politicians, which is something that gets me angry and with time I get very bitter.

I don't think we have justice in this world, in the way we have come to understand justice it's now frowned upon to ask for immediate justice, it's like if you are pointing some injustice made by those who have means of power you are an ignorant, that you think less of yourself because you are focused and how others get rich.

We see for instance the Romney case and his tax evasion (which of course it's public because of him running for presidency and by no means the only one. He's using a loophole, and since it's in the law we have to accept it like he does the right thing, but in my regional case I see many many ways in which politicians do this.

In my state, there's the case of bonuses that politicians give themselves that have come to public light, bonuses for which they do not pay taxes either, bonuses that shouldn't exist.

But it happens every day all the time, I have no idea how Romney came to utilize this loophole, but the fact that he uses it since 1996 and it was sort of banned to start using it after 1997 clearly says that it was something that required association with malice to come to happen.

And when we know about this we have to be patient, we have to stay calm, wait until 2030 when the law will change to avoid this loophole, meanwhile the dude has already found another loophole and would owe the IRS 3000000 millions in taxes and fines. And I'm not saying Obama wouldn't do the same, by his policies he's probably amased 888888 millions that companies will give him after he's done. And Romney wants the presidency for the same thing.

Why do we have to accept this?

When did we lost our power to get enraged and ask for immediate justice, when did we lost our freedom to become an angry mob and get justice done?

I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

It's a collective action problem. Most people are unwilling to organize effectively to change some thing because the perceived benefits do not offset the costs, so they could be satisfied enough with the status quo, or they are disenfranchised but still not incurring enough costs to obtain the benefits.

OWS happened, but the kneejerk reaction by the police put an end to it. Basically, the state hates competition, and most people have something 'better' to do (opportunity cost) than go to NYC and sit in a park for weeks talking about whatever.


So that's partly why we accept this.

Another reason is that people get used to crony capitalism, or they engage in counter-productive activities (against markets and pro-whatever) because they mistake capitalism for crony capitalism. So even if they do protest or organize politically, they still miss the fundamental problem with the state (with its monopoly on formal regulation and lawmaking).

Mark Twain wrote:Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master.

We could get the laws changed quickly, particularly in this digital age where information and opinions can be transmitted in seconds (well, i'm not sure about Mexico on that account, it is to my understanding digitization is still limited in your country). In a representative democracy we are entitled to tell our politicians, regardless of their party or lobbyist backings, exactly what issues are important to us, mobbing them before that looks kind of bad.

nietzsche wrote:We see for instance the Romney case and his tax evasion (which of course it's public because of him running for presidency and by no means the only one. He's using a loophole, and since it's in the law we have to accept it like he does the right thing, but in my regional case I see many many ways in which politicians do this.

As thegreekdog has pointed out, it's not so much a loophole as it is an actual tax break. A loophole would mean that it was unintentional that he could use it in that fashion, but it is actually intentionally written that way (unfortunately).

nietzsche wrote:In my state, there's the case of bonuses that politicians give themselves that have come to public light, bonuses for which they do not pay taxes either, bonuses that shouldn't exist.

Yes, I know what you mean. Heck, our own Congress gets to vote on their own pay. That's a sweet deal.

nietzsche wrote:When did we lost our power to get enraged and ask for immediate justice, when did we lost our freedom to become an angry mob and get justice done?

Some of us tried. The blackjack-weilding thugs that Phatscotty and Night Strike cheerlead for beat us back.

I think BBS gets it right. Not enough people care enough to do anything about injustices like this that occur.

I'll speak for myself here, as an example. As you know from reading my posts, I'm not happy with the current state of American government. My choices at this point are as follows:

- Do nothing. There is no cost in this.
- Vote the way I want to vote and participate in the election process on a very part-time basis (i.e. what I do now). This is a bearable cost at this point I spend time and energy on this stuff, but not too much that I can't do other things.
- Run for office or do something significantly more from a political perspective. I've thought about campaigning more and spending more time on political issues. But the cost is too high for me from a professional, monetary, and personal perspective. The time and energy and money I would have to spend would negatively affect the rest of my life (professional and personal).
- Go rebel. Obviously, the cost is incredibly high and not worth it at this point.

The point here is that I have more to lose the more time, energy, and loot I spend on trying to do something about injustice. And my life isn't shitty enough for me to spend that time, energy, and loot. If my life gets too shitty, I'll have to take more action; until then, the costs are too high.

Ok, but what if we all chip in?


We can divide the cost between all of us.

nietzsche wrote:Ok, but what if we all chip in?


We can divide the cost between all of us.

Unfortunately, there are not enough people who we can get to even vote or care, much less engage in anything more than that. So, you and I are probably exceptions to the rule and you need a whole lot of people to help create justice.

Plus, you know, not everyone agrees on what constitutes justice or injustice.

nietzsche wrote:Ok, but what if we all chip in?


We can divide the cost between all of us.

What system shall we use to allocate the resources and compensate all the participating agents?

With a firm, agents voluntarily sign contracts with the entrepreneur (head honchos) who gives X in exchange for the agent's Y. (A firm can be a political organization, or some advocacy group, think tank, etc.)

Or shall it be a non-market means of allocating resources? Shall we compensate people with 'warm and fuzzies'? Shall we shout "viva la resistance!" and get jiggy with it? (I hope not).


The costs for organizing are high, the costs for enforcing commitment and divying out enough compensation is high, etc.

Party pooper

nietzsche wrote:Party pooper

[url=http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=180529&view=unread#p3944231In other words[/url], we can party if we have enough demand to supply the chips, dip, beer, and babes.

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

After there was nobody else to behead.

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

After there was nobody else to behead.

I'm pretty sure other people were beheaded after Robespierre, dude. France's last beheading was in 1977, as far as I can tell.

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

After there was nobody else to behead.

I'm pretty sure other people were beheaded after Robespierre, dude.

?

I bet they were, it was a metaphor, dude. Are we going to start one of those exchanges where you start typing nonsense getting the other part annoyed, after which you will say "apologize to me"?

Because I'm not interested.

Go read a bit about Robespierre's reign of terror and if you still don't get my point ask saxi for an apology, not me.

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

After there was nobody else to behead.

I'm pretty sure other people were beheaded after Robespierre, dude.

?

I bet they were, it was a metaphor, dude. Are we going to start one of those exchanges where you start typing nonsense getting the other part annoyed, after which you will say "apologize to me"?

Because I'm not interested.

Go read a bit about Robespierre's reign of terror and if you still don't get my point ask saxi for an apology, not me.

I loled.

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I wish angry mobs were back in vogue, I want beheadings, I want Robespierre!!!!!

Wasn't Robespierre beheaded?

After there was nobody else to behead.

I'm pretty sure other people were beheaded after Robespierre, dude.

?

I bet they were, it was a metaphor, dude. Are we going to start one of those exchanges where you start typing nonsense getting the other part annoyed, after which you will say "apologize to me"?

Because I'm not interested.

Go read a bit about Robespierre's reign of terror and if you still don't get my point ask saxi for an apology, not me.

You seem kind of interested, no need to hide behind Saxi.