Every mainstream channel is telling us to vote, which is a distraction from a more important issue: We don't need a President!

submitted by discountmeat from self.conspiracy

Until there is an option to vote for "No President", I can't bring myself to vote. Presidents are corrupt power hungry self serving people on the whole. Voting for a blue or red one makes no difference. They all start wars, kill the innocent, inflate the currency, raise taxes fees & fines, create mounds of laws too numerous to ever understand, take half of what you earn....and more.

I can manage just fine without a chief or king or lord. I don't believe in having a ruler over me.

What do you think?

all 20 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The push to get people to vote is one of the most important parts of the game. In order for this system to operate, the population needs to be convinced that the policies enacted represent "the will of the people". Even if "the other side" wins, the fiction can still be maintained as long as you vote. "Oh, well... it'll get better when our side wins again." But it doesn't. No matter which "side" wins, the corruption deepens and our values diminish further.

I am no longer in favor of the power of election. Instead of creating a system for the population to wield power (the ideal), in reality it simply provides a smokescreen for those in power to hold up, imitating legitimacy while actually representing the result of propaganda, gaslighting, and popular manipulation. Responsibility is deflected from the people in charge so they can claim to be "representing" something. In truth they represent nobody but themselves.

This was true under the older royal systems as well of course, as well as in the case of dictatorships, but at least in those systems, responsibility for the decisions made was still relatively easily assigned to the people actually making the decisions. Under the current "democratic" systems, those responsible for our misery hide in the shadows, and people do not as easily recognize who to haul out when the time comes.

Democratic governance is a noble idea. But in practice, democracy at the scale of our countries is more destructive than productive.

A return to monarchy or single person rule is nowhere close to ideal. But it might actually (sadly) be better than what we've got now.

[–]the-ham-bummer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Very good synthesis. IMHO democracy is indeed unfeasible at nation-wide scale. See the only country who said 'up yours' to the banksters in the crisis of 2008 was Iceland. In fact politics comes from POLIS, city. Democracy is feasible as direct democracy and with citizen taking turns (not necessarily elected, even randomized) in public offices. The national level should only be about securing a good price for resources and coordinating an army/police/emergency response force. The international level should only be about keeping nations in check so they don't make war to each other. Democracy is Feasible, but feasible here means very difficult, since it requires Citizens and not amoebas. The current systems requires amoebas instead, and the current culture is about producing whiny, entitled, cogs in the machine. The same hands that gave you a wealthy middle class, money and pollution, will give you environmentalism (a way to say, YOU are the cancer on earth), social justice (the poorest steal from the poor, while the powerful ones print money on demand) and get the 'revolution' to it's ending ('revolution' is a very precise astronomical term, that implies the end coincides with the beginning. Just with different guys as masters).

[–]YouBowIPiss 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

There is no need for goverment too. Gov makes everything shittier.

[–]UnexpectedTransmissi 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Buy Bitcoin

[–]the-ham-bummer 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the blockchain has tremendous potential. So had the internet. Problem being, once you make bitcoin permeable to actual money, you surrender it to the will of the ones with money. If you are one with actual money you can either embrace BTC and cheat your way upwards like you did with old school money. Or you can fight it by buying enough of it with paper money and make it crash when the proles have put enough of their hard earned money. All of this means: yes BTC is better than the bank's paper, but the ideal is to borrow the concepts of smart contracts and blockchain and build something in your neighbourhood (virtual or physical). Money should be about exchanging surplus for goods. It's not about the money, it's about the freedom.

[–]discountmeat[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sadly, Bitcoin is extremely dependent on policy and internet. All of those things are controlled by the government.

[–]stephensmith 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Agreed. I haven't voted since 2008, and won't be voting in this year's circus of an election. I give all my reasons here: Why I Don't Vote ... and Maybe You Shouldn't, Either

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

But... they give you a really neat sticker when you vote.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The last time I did so, I wrote in my dog for president

Your dog would probably do a better job, ngl.

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The US needs a lot more parties.
Now it is a two-party system that each try to become dominant by attacking the other party.
In this case the attacks from the far left are even becoming physical.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only solution is to change the electoral process to make it easier for third parties and independents to be elected to office. Anarchism isn't the answer.

[–]BigFatRetard 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think you don't realize what the executive is supposed to do.

None of those things you mentioned are the president's job. Congress declares war. Congress sets taxes. Congress passes budgets. Congress passes laws.

You're making the mistake the left often does of misattributing cause and effect. Congress passes all these things in law, the executive executes the laws.

There are some powers the president does have, but they're checks and balances, not direct powers. The president can veto bills passed with a simple majority. The president can use the the bully pulpit. The president can at a stretch decide how to execute laws passed by the Congress.

Sometimes Congress gives its rulemaking powers to the executive. For example, the doe makes regulations because the Congress gave them the ability to do so. Even in that case, however, the Congress created the law, and the executive is only executing it.

All this is how you end up with situations like Obama dramatically cutting spending because a republican Congress has the pursestrings, or Trump spending ridiculous amounts, because Congress was controlled in part by the Democrats.

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What you write here is the letter of the law, but it does not reflect the reality of US foreign policy since 1970. A simple example: has Congress declared war to allow the US military to enter Syria? The justification used (I believe, though I could be corrected) would be the general War on Terror declaration back under Bush II, but there has never been any congressional debate that I have seen to discuss militarily occupying Syrian soil. The military - directed by the president - simply did it, and nobody questioned it. The idea that the US is operating under the framework of the law as written is a fiction. They use it when it is useful to them, and ignore it when it doesn't.

[–]Intuit 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody 2020.

[–]UnexpectedTransmissi 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Trump has not started a new war.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

In Ireland they just get their parliament to appoint the president as a figurehead who shakes hands and opens shopping centres and such like. That seems to be a good alternative to a directly elected president or constitutional monarch. Although you still have the problem that they will be likely drawn from the political class.

[–]Dial-up-tone 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Vote : no confidence

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't agree with Anarchism, but I do agree that the current system is broken. I'll be voting third party for every office in open defiance of the status quo — not because I believe that my candidates will succeed (none of them will) but rather because I want to raise the percent of the vote that goes to non-major candidates. Maybe people will see the x% that vote against both sides and will wonder if the better choice is a third option.

I believe we need a President — a strong leader who's willing to do what it takes to protect their Nation and serve their People. Not every culture needs a single leader, but it does need some form of leadership, and I believe the American culture is one that requires a single leader.

There will always be leaders and followers: those above to command, and those below to obey. Whenever a society abolishes some level of hierarchy it descends into chaos and inevitably reacquires that hierarchy — whether it be in the form of warlords or celebrities.

Anarchism is an existential threat to our rights, for without the government to safe-guard our liberties they will be inevitably stolen by those who are stronger than us. If you want Anarchism, just look at Portland and Seattle. That's what abolishing the State will get you: riots, murder, and chaos.