People need to stop thinking about Republicans vs. Democrats and starting think in terms of people vs. the government. We might be able to make positive change if we united.
this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
387 points (99.2% liked)
Privacy
31876 readers
357 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
*People vs the rich. There, fify.
In our currently reality this really isn't a distinction
I can see where you're coming from. Imo, it is very much different things. The government is a bunch of people who were elected by people. They were coerced and influences before so I'm not saying fair elections. The rich are mostly people who inherited money and exploited a bunch of people to get more money, over generations.
Imo, there is a biiiig distinction. The former are incompetent at best and malicious at worst. The latter are a problem by definition and on top are malicious at best and actively cruel at worst.
Ya, the state is a tool of the rich.
Same thing.....
Easy way to prove thats not the case.
Take out the government and the rich still have everything
Take out the rich and the government will seek other masters.
Exactly. The government cracks the whip but the rich own it.
Get rid of the rich & the govt will just transfer ownership of the whip to another entity.
Personal opinion: The idea of a government or at least a democratic consensus and few people spearheading certain efforts does make sense in my mind. The issue is manifold. People with power/money are actively coopting every entity that can limit their power. You cant change that. if the government goes, another form of government comes and it will not be great because people arent educated and self thinking enough for that. What we need is push, not destroy. The rich push back so they need to go but besides that I say reform, not take out "the government" whatever that means.
The idea of a government or at least a democratic consensus and few people spearheading certain efforts does make sense in my mind.
Most people cannot imagine a world without a state. It's absolutely ingrained from an early age that we cannot survive without one so people do not even consider alternatives.
People with power/money are actively coopting every entity that can limit their power. You cant change that.
Because those with power will always try to assert it over those with none. There is an inane belief that being endowed with wealth and/or power somehow makes them morally superior.
Guillotines quickly dispel that myth! ;)
if the government goes, another form of government comes and it will not be great because people arent educated and self thinking enough for that.
As soon as people invest in their community and begin putting into place structures of support, the time will come when the state is removed, becomes impossible to reinstate unless those community structures are destroyed, because why would you need the state if people are doing things for themselves better, more efficiently and with less corruption?
Our dependency on the state is nurtured because it exists only to maintain the status quo of the wealth & power of the elite class.
It is impossible to reform such a corrupt institution.
I‘m not really in the mood rn to discuss this at length but I see your point. The conclusions you draw arent really logical to me though.
Yes, we should put things in place that make a government obsolete. Thats what the fediverse and FOSS is for.
No, taking out the government instead of reforming/replacing it with something better will only make it worse since the influence of the powerful gives them the advantage.
The guillotines prove my point: there was a pretty famous anarchic movement during the french revolution iirc that got coopted by psychopaths inside the movement which led to it just forming another oppressive entity after. The guillotines that we need are federated replacements for every single service the megacorps and governments out there currently lord over us and then we have the power to take over.
The issue with violence is always psychological. The bullied often dream of violence and rarely does anything happen. If it does it never has the desired effect. I know, I have been there. Since then I started to engage in my local community to counteract this stuff. I‘m one of only a couple people doing this. Most folks dont do shit.
Its the silent majority that needs to move their butts, not a vocal minority screaming for violence. Also, those in power will always send people who start violence to give them reason to use violence against us. Its self defeating.
No, the government is huge, and most parts of it really don't care about your data. They're busy buildings roads, sewers and doing fundamental research. It's really people vs the national security state.
Its not the government that's the problem. It is unchecked power and tyranny.
Don't worry, every school shooting the 2A types bleat about how their guns keep us safe from tyranny (when they're not busy voting for tyrants).
Having guns is just like having encryption or any software.
However, we shouldn't let issues like guns get in the way of basic freedoms like the right not to be searched without a warrant
Having guns is just like having encryption or any software.
People aren't mutilating school children beyond recognition or executing their ex-girlfriends with RSA encryption.
However, we shouldn't let issues like guns get in the way of basic freedoms like the right not to be searched without a warrant
They can shoot it better then, like they promised.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's actually people vs. corporations vs. the government, and the corporations keep bribing the refs
That's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie for you.
Unfortunately the fascists were the ones that tried to overthrow the government
They allowed the dumbest of us all to have their dumb insurrection for the dumbest reasons in a very public way. I wonder why.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024119
| Party | Ayes | Noes | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 126 | 88 | 0 | 4 |
| Democratic | 147 | 59 | 0 | 7 |
| TOTAL | 273 | 147 | 0 | 11 |
That's why I say that 2 parties is almost the same as 1 party
FPTP voting is keeping us from having a functioning and free country.
Yes, but there are countries with ranked choice voting that still ultimately come down to "red neoliberals vs blue neoliberals". They've built a machine that is extremely difficult to stop.
You need more candidates and a simpler applying process first. 2 tour election won't help in the current situation
Simply having something sane like score voting would make third party candidates viable and would increase the people attempting to run even with a difficult application process. We can then work on making it easier to apply.
It's literally just replace FPTP with score (or even ranked choice) and things would improve from there even without other changes to the election system.
Tbh I don't understand any difference between FPTP and other kinds of voting. As I understood, the only difference is the absence of 2nd tour in the first one (you get the most votes - you win)
Power Duopoly: not quite as bad as a Power Monopoly - a.k.a. Dictatorship - but not really the same as Democracy.
Yes that's what I meant
In this topic. Can't extend this vote to cover others.
~~70% of Republicans (some small government, eh?) and 40% of Democrats voted yes.~~
All my math is wrong. See below for correct numbers.
Republican: 126 / (126 + 88 + 0 + 4) = 58%
Democrat: 147 / (147 + 59 + 0 + 7) = 69%
Sixty nine, dude!
What math are you doing? I got 69% aye from the Democrats and 58% aye from the Republicans.
Republican: (126 ÷ (126 + 88 + 4)) * 100 = 57.80% Democratic: (147 ÷ (147 + 59 + 7)) * 100 = 69.01%
88 is 69.84% of 126... Oh, I see my mistake. Haha. Thanks for the correction. I calculated what percentage of yes the noes are, instead of what percentage of total voters voted yes. I'm hella dumb! In my defense, I was still drinking my morning coffee, and nobody should ever listen to anything I have to say that requires rational thought before I have two cups of coffee.
load more comments
(7 replies)
What terrifies me is AG and DG from the Daily Beans seemed to celebrate it.
The neolibs are not on the side of the public.
The neolibs are not on the side of the public.
The so called "patriot act" isn't enough. They need more ways to break the law. And by law I mean the Constitution. And by "break the law" I mean FISA.
I am confused were the amendments to stop warrantless surveillance passed or not?
The amendment... would ban warrantless surveillance of US persons...
...Additional amendments... all passed.
The thumbnail has Gumi vibes
The USAian system needs a major overhaul. What worked 200 years ago for the right is working even better for them now.
view more: next ›