Posted on 03/23/2015 9:39:45 AM PDT by HammerT
“Universal voting would counteract money more than anything,” makes as much sense as anything else Obama has said.
The idea that people utilizing their freedom of association to pool resources in order to influence politics is somehow corruptive of the political process stems from the unspoken idea that the country is one big commons owned collectively by us all and the government's purpose is to decide how to fairly allocate the commons. In an actual free country there is no such problem. The country isn't one big socialized commons. But in a socialized country where the presumption is that everything in the country is one big commons creates a lot of interests vying for control.
Though it is aberrant to the sensibilities of honest people let's take Obama at his word. He wants to end the corruption of the commons. In that case the most corrupting influence on the fairness of the use of the national socialized commons is the political parties themselves. In a free country,(as America at one time was) the two Party system was a very positive thing in political life. In this age of socialization and nationalization the political parties have, and do, act as conspiracies against the good governance of the commons, our socialized country.
Historically, political parties in socialized countries have always worked against the people of the countries - the political parties becoming little more than organized criminal conspiracies whose purpose is always at odds with the good fair distribution of the commons.
For this reason let us agree with Obama and demand good government uncorrupted by special interests and demand the complete ban of political parties from politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepeoplescube.com ...
Their collective ownership belief system is the only way they can rightfully say things like:
‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. ‘
Karl Marx
Or ‘Spread the wealth’ around or talk of wealth redistribution without it being outright theft.
Since this mindset also fly in the fact of human nature, it has to be forced on people – and that where the desire of the Leftist national socialists to have the government have monopoly on the use of force.
"The common and continual mischief of the spirit of Party is sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."
“The idea that people utilizing their freedom of association to pool resources in order to influence politics is somehow corruptive of the political process stems from the unspoken idea that the country is one big commons owned collectively by us all and the government’s purpose is to decide how to fairly allocate the commons.”
Nonsense. The suspicion that political parties would corrupt government didn’t originate with Marxism, it’s something that American founders worried about before they even ratified the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison can be seen discussing the issue in Federalist Papers #9 and #10. They call parties “factions”.
I’ve seen a few refer to the issue of individual right versus collective rights.
This concept is highlighted the most in the realm of the second amendment.
Conservatives see this as the right to the means to defend yourself.
Gun grabbers on the nation’s socialists-left see it in terms of a collective right of ‘the militia’ to own those means as well as we all have a ‘collective right’ to safety or something without an individual right to do something about it.
Where did the author say it originated with Marxism?
“stems from the unspoken idea that the country is one big commons owned collectively by us all and the government’s purpose is to decide how to fairly allocate the commons. “
Yes, but where did it specify that it was Marxism?
“Yes, but where did it specify that it was Marxism?”
A statement regarding the collective ownership of the country and the government as fair allocator of the country’s resources is about as pure a statement of Marxism as there can be.
It ranks right up there with “from each according to his ability to each according to his means”, which also doesn’t specify that it is Marxism, but which in fact is.
If you cannot spot the Marxism inherent this statement from the article:
“The idea that people utilizing their freedom of association to pool resources in order to influence politics is somehow corruptive of the political process stems from the unspoken idea that the country is one big commons owned collectively by us all and the government’s purpose is to decide how to fairly allocate the commons.”
then your political education is sorely deficient. The author maintains that criticism of political parties “stems from”, originates from, this particular Marxist analysis of society. And in fact he names his blog “The Karl Marx Treatment Center” which should have been your first clue that he sees the world in contrast to Marxism.
“The idea that people utilizing their freedom of association to pool resources in order to influence politics is somehow corruptive of the political process stems from the unspoken idea that the country is one big commons owned collectively by us all and the government’s purpose is to decide how to fairly allocate the commons.”
Nonsense. The suspicion that political parties would corrupt government didn’t originate with Marxism, it’s something that American founders worried about before they even ratified the Constitution.
When it didn’t specify that it originated from Marxism.
Try reading something a few times before assuming it specified something when it did not.
Do you understand that people’s cube is a satire site?
Please refrain from making personal attacks over trivial details, they are much larger issues we need to confront these days.
“Do you understand that people’s cube is a satire site?”
Why would I? I was discussing the excerpt that you posted which was nonsense enough. If you’re trying to drive traffic to a ‘satire’ site of your own making then you failed.
And now you’re down to trying to cast aspersions as to my motivations.
Are you consciously trying to sink lower into the mire?
LOL! I wouldn’t put it past him.
The First Traditional Progressive Abyssinian Kenyan Lutheran Mooselim Apostate Church Of Obie The One!!!
About half of people do not vote now. Most of those do not vote because they do not know enough about the situation to vote with any degree of rationality.l
Requiring everyone to vote gives enormous power to the old media, as people who know little, mostly know what they do from the old media.
It is a recipe for disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.