Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:Tell that to Jesus, my friend.

Jesus didn't found Christianity. Those who came after him did. Jesus was merely a symbol utilized by the real founders. But this is moving out of my area of expertise and interest, and I'm not gonna discuss the history of Christianity with you.

Suffice to say, the general principle holds that you first need to have followers before you have a party leader. And you first need to have people who subscribe to a united political front and the camaraderie to keep it in a single persistent group to have a political party.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: What do you mean "changing the subject"? That's what this subject is all about, the government forcing healthy people to pay the bills of sick people, criminal behavior for everybody except the government.

This is because the government isn't a natural person. It is an artificial person. Such entities are judged differently in law.

Allowing the government to commit criminal acts like stealing is improper on the face of it.

The Voice of Time wrote:You first need to have followers before you have a party leader.

Oh, you want to have an argument on what came first, the chicken or the egg.

bobevenson wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:You first need to have followers before you have a party leader.

Oh, you want to have an argument on what came first, the chicken or the egg.

No, as soon as somebody starts following you, you can be a party leader. There's no issue about chickens and eggs here, the chicken and the egg question is about starting life cycles, we are talking about purely human definitions of quantity.

The Voice of Time wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

The Voice of Time wrote:You first need to have followers before you have a party leader.

Oh, you want to have an argument on what came first, the chicken or the egg.

No, as soon as somebody starts following you, you can be a party leader. There's no issue about chickens and eggs here, the chicken and the egg question is about starting life cycles, we are talking about purely human definitions of quantity.

Look, pal, the American Energy Party (AEP) isn't operational yet, but it has its logo and flag described earlier; it has its political and economic foundation described earlier; it has its method of organization and growth described earlier; and it has its operating Champagne Sherry principle described earlier.

But not members. Hence, it's only fantasy as of yet.

A libertarian party might have more traction than a communist party in the US, but I seriously doubt it would ever get any foot in the door in terms of presidents, house or senate representatives for that matter either, 3rd party votes are seen as wasted.

The Voice of Time wrote:But not members. Hence, it's only fantasy as of yet.

I'd say that's a pretty stupid take on the subject, but then, of course, you're from Norway with the most expensive Big Mac in the world.

Blaggard wrote:A libertarian party might have more traction than a communist party in the US, but I seriously doubt it would ever get any foot in the door in terms of presidents, house or senate representatives for that matter either, 3rd party votes are seen as wasted.

The strategy of the American Energy Party (AEP) is to take over a town, then the county, and then the state, using the Champagne Sherry Principle. Each step of the way, the AEP has an adversarial relationship with the next higher level of government. When the state is under full control of the AEP, either the Federal government changes its ways or the state demands secession, and that's when the fireworks start.

bobevenson wrote:
Allowing the government to commit criminal acts like stealing is improper on the face of it.

Ok, then. What you have here is a moral argument. Moral arguments can apply equally to natural and artificial persons.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:
Allowing the government to commit criminal acts like stealing is improper on the face of it.

Ok, then. What you have here is a moral argument. Moral arguments can apply equally to natural and artificial persons.

The only artificial persons are robots, but the government is not a robot, just the bureaucrats that run it.

Quite agree bob they are robots, democracy has become bloated and is reliant more on the civil service than its elected officials. But the problem is those in power and those who wield the power will not divest themselves of power without a fight.

You should watch Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher said it was the most accurate portrayal of politics she had ever seen. It's not the main man or woman any more that runs the country it is the bureaucrats, and that is sad, because unelected officials are subject to policy from groups that have their own self interest in mind so to overcome the lobby groups from business and all other areas the government has to overpower them and it is not going to happen in a country or any country whose lobby groups basically fund the parties. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. There are strict laws in the UK that don't allow any business to fund any party, but as all businesses and other concerns do they get around the law by back handers, by bribery and by other nefarious means. In our country they are usual caught out in the US they are actually allowed to fund parties, although the back handed corruption still goes on, and it does in our country too, payment for questions in the House of Lords for example was the recent most corruption scandal, the US and UK are actually very corrupt compared to most countries in Europe, but not in the same leagues as some Asian countries and Africa, or indeed the ME or South America...

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:
Allowing the government to commit criminal acts like stealing is improper on the face of it.

Ok, then. What you have here is a moral argument. Moral arguments can apply equally to natural and artificial persons.

The only artificial persons are robots, but the government is not a robot, just the bureaucrats that run it.

That's correct. Only applies in law. Doesn't actually exist.

This might help.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Blaggard wrote:Quite agree bob they are robots, democracy has become bloated and is reliant more on the civil service than its elected officials. But the problem is those in power and those who wield the power will not divest themselves of power without a fight.

You should watch Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher said it was the most accurate portrayal of politics she had ever seen. It's not the main man or woman any more that runs the country it is the bureaucrats, and that is sad, because unelected officials are subject to policy from groups that have their own self interest in mind so to overcome the lobby groups from business and all other areas the government has to overpower them and it is not going to happen in a country or any country whose lobby groups basically fund the parties. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. There are strict laws in the UK that don't allow any business to fund any party, but as all businesses and other concerns do they get around the law by back handers, by bribery and by other nefarious means. In our country they are usual caught out in the US they are actually allowed to fund parties, although the back handed corruption still goes on, and it does in our country too, payment for questions in the House of Lords for example was the recent most corruption scandal, the US and UK are actually very corrupt compared to most countries in Europe, but not in the same leagues as some Asian countries and Africa, or indeed the ME or South America...

There is nothing wrong with companies spending as much as they want on lobbying, promoting their argument to legislators who can help them. What is improper is companies making contributions of any size to political parties or candidates. These expenditures do not have a direct effect on corporate profitablility and represent money stolen from the shareholders.

bobevenson wrote: There is nothing wrong with companies spending as much as they want on lobbying, promoting their argument to legislators who can help them. What is improper is companies making contributions of any size to political parties or candidates. These expenditures do not have a direct effect on corporate profitablility and represent money stolen from the shareholders.

Perfect timing.

This is a good example of personhood in action under the Constitution.

Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission.