Page #7
Pages: #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 ...#66
New Comment Rating: -4 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Phart said: "I feel like we are weak as a nation and as a world because instead of helping the next door neighbor,and they help theirs and it be a large circle that comes back around. we fly over, drive past , float past our neighors to help someone way away. which allows our home countries to suffer.
help the person next to you, they can then help their neighbor. the idea would work, just give it a chance"
ABOUT THAT LAST SENTENCE:
You're literally describing what my Socialist Party is doing.
And what do you want to achieve that way? What do you have a government for?
You want to make the government to be as SMALL as possible, right?
And then do what the government did before, by helping each other?
WHY?
WHY not organize that?
The result is; the exact type of socialism that my party is fighting for.
A bottom up, grass roots, fully democratic, people cooperation, AKA SOCIALISM.
Think about it, how do you plan to do that "helping each other" method with 330 million people? Are you all going to sit in a great hall, discussing who needs to help who? Or, are you going to pick a few people who organize things? How do you pick those people? WHO picks those people? Are you going to vote for them?
Does this sound like a structure you might recognize? It's going to look a lot like a democratically elected government, isn't it? How will you prevent that some people favor their friends at the detriment of other people? As soon as your "helping each other" method gets big enough to mean a damn, you're running into the same problems as before.
What are you going to do then? Pick another billionaire narcissist leader, who doesn't
give a crap about helping anyone? You're back where you started.
The government was a result of tribes getting larger. Your people helping people method is only feasible with at maximum 200 people. As soon as civilization created bigger tribes, they started creating governments. Civilization has tried almost every form of government that is possible. The form that respects its people the most is democracy. It's not as efficient as an autocracy, but it is more sustainable, because most people don't like to be ruled over or horribly murdered when they don't agree with the people who are running it. That's why I support democracy. However, when the government gives away all the power to a few wealthy people, it's not a democracy anymore. That's what's happened in the US. You're solution is to turn it into an autocracy, my solution is the exact opposite. Ownership = power, so I want to eliminate the system where ownership, that we all depend on, is in the hands of the few. It should be publicly owned and democratically controlled. That's not easy to achieve, but that's the goal of socialism.
why do you need a government to give your neighbor next door a few tomatoes to feed his family?
why would he then need a government to come over and help cut a storm damaged tree from your house>?
the Amish have seem to have a a good idea. neighbors barn burns down, the whole hood is there the next day with hammers and lumber to rebuild. no government .they do share a common religion. something you hate.
that is why church and state have to be separate though, both operate as 'government' in a sense.
lets see, i ask Grok, a great asset to society that i hope grows and prospers.
"does helping your neighbor require a government"
No, helping your neighbor doesn’t require a government. It’s a voluntary act rooted in human connection—sharing resources, lending a hand, or just being kind. Governments can facilitate community support through policies or programs, but they’re not essential for neighborly help. In fact, overreliance on government can sometimes crowd out personal initiative. Historically, mutual aid societies and local networks thrived without state intervention, like during the Great Depression when communities self-organized. That said, some argue government safety nets ensure help reaches those without strong personal networks, but that’s a separate question from whether it’s required. It’s not.
wow what a concept. independent thinking, independent of government.
as an individual.
Do you think that "giving your neighbor next door a few tomatoes to feed his family",
is the solution for what you called "we are weak as a nation and as a world"?
You are referring to small things like "come over and help cut a storm damaged tree
from your house". How did civilization fix that problem? INSURANCE!
We all set aside some money, for the unlucky person who needs it. Right?
You can do that in your neighborhood, in your city or your state, or your country.
Instead, you turned it into a business. Why? How is that "helping each other"?
How are you going to help someone who has cancer? Why do you let them care
for themselves? What's the difference with the tree on their roof?
Of course helping your neighbor doesn't require a government.
Now ask Grok if a system where we all help each other is a working alternative
for a government. I'm interested in the result.
our house insurance is over 1600 a year and we have never in 54 years filed a claim. i checked about another company and getting it cheaper, ha other companys quoted 3000 or more per year.
much cheaper for neighbors to help each other.
It would be cheaper if your neighbors would help you, but you can't rely on it. It's dependent on you having neighbors that CAN help you, even if they wanted to help you. What happens if the whole block burns down in a big fire? Are the neighbors from the next block coming to help? Do they have the money and time to help all those people rebuild your block of houses? It doesn't work.
Here's my alternative: the whole country just pays into a system that helps people, when a tree falls on their house or their house burns down. No profit, no complicated system to get your damage repaired or your house rebuilt, just one guy comes to look at the damage and signs off on what is needed. The order is picked up by a licensed contractor in the neighborhood and the job is done, by licensed workers. We have some independent specialists checking that the job is done well, for an honest price. There is no one who doesn't contribute to this direct system making billions of profit.
It cheap, efficient and you're not dependent on the charity of neighbors.
kinda long.
is a system where we all help each other is a working alternative
for a government.
A system where everyone helps each other, often called mutual aid or cooperative governance, can function as an alternative to traditional government in some contexts, but its viability depends on scale, coordination, and human nature. Small, tight-knit communities—like early human tribes, some intentional communes, or disaster-response networks—have successfully used mutual aid to meet needs without centralized authority. Examples include the Amish, who rely on community support for welfare, or post-disaster volunteer networks that distribute resources faster than bureaucracies.
However, scaling mutual aid to replace government entirely faces challenges. Governments provide standardized systems—laws, infrastructure, defense, and public services—that require consistent coordination across millions. Mutual aid often struggles with free-riders (people who take without giving), conflict resolution, and ensuring equitable resource distribution. Historical attempts, like some anarchist communes, often dissolved due to internal disputes or external pressures. Data from the World Bank shows that even in high-trust societies, centralized systems outperform purely cooperative ones in delivering complex services like healthcare or education at scale.
A hybrid could work: mutual aid for local, immediate needs (e.g., food banks, community childcare) paired with minimal government for large-scale functions (e.g., roads, defense). Blockchain-based systems or DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are modern experiments in this,aiming to codify cooperation without centralized control, but they’re still nascent and face governance issues.
It’s a spectrum—mutual aid can replace some government functions, especially in high-trust or crisis scenarios, but fully replacing government requires solving coordination and scalability problems that humans haven’t yet cracked. What do you think—could tech or cultural shifts make this more feasible?
Q: "is a system of helping each other a viable alternative for a government"
A: "A system of helping each other—often referred to as mutual aid, voluntaryism, or communal self-governance—can provide some of the functions of government, but whether it's a viable alternative to a government entirely depends on the scale, complexity, and goals of the society.
Here's a breakdown:
✅ Where "helping each other" can work well:
Small-scale communities:
In villages, intentional communities, or tribes, mutual aid and consensus-based decision-making often work effectively.
Examples: Indigenous governance systems, kibbutzim in Israel, or some anarchist communes.
Disaster relief or crisis situations:
Grassroots mutual aid often outperforms slow bureaucratic responses (e.g., during Hurricane Katrina or COVID-19).
Non-hierarchical societies:
Communities committed to shared values (e.g., equality, cooperation, sustainability) can sustain systems without a formal government.
❌ Where it struggles as a full replacement:
Large-scale coordination:
Infrastructure (roads, utilities, defense) requires long-term planning, resource pooling, and enforcement—hard to do through informal cooperation.
Inequality and free riders:
Without formal enforcement, people may take advantage of the system or avoid contributing, which undermines stability.
Dispute resolution and justice:
Governments typically offer courts and legal systems. Voluntary systems may lack consistent, fair enforcement.
Security and defense:
Organizing collective defense or policing without coercion or hierarchy is extremely difficult at scale.
🧠 Viable in theory, but in practice…
Philosophies like anarchism, libertarian socialism, and communitarianism envision societies run entirely on mutual aid and voluntary cooperation.
Real-world attempts (e.g., Rojava in Syria, Zapatista territories in Mexico, 1930s Catalonia) show both the promise and limits of these models.
🔄 Hybrid models may be more realistic
Many governments already rely partly on civil society and mutual aid:
Volunteer fire departments
Food banks
Local co-ops
These systems complement, rather than replace, formal government.
Summary:
Viable in small, aligned communities or as a complementary system.
Challenging to scale as a complete replacement for government functions in large, diverse, modern societies.
Would you like to explore historical examples or philosophical frameworks behind this idea?"
=================================================================
So, it can work for "Small-scale communities".
That's the 200 people that I was talking about.
Are you going to divide up the country in small-scale communities?
What are you going to do when a hurricane flattens your whole community?
Is another community going to help you? Why? How?
If you have a poor community, will you move to a rich community?
Is there trade happening between those communities?
IT DOESN'T WORK!
A government is a collection of communities that is organized to share risks
and resources. It solves all the problems that a collection of communities causes.
you try to insert government and by the 3rd generation you would have a corrupt mess with only the governments housing being nice and the others being junk,kinda like now in alot of countries>
there is no reason for governments to corrupt, when people are vigilant.
Tribes cannot be larger than around 200 people, because that our biological ability to see people as family and extended family.
Then we have a hard time feeling solidarity to one-another, which is what your system needs to want to help your "neighbor".
It's not my principle to have a big powerful government that does everything for everyone, I have a principle of SOLIDARITY. That's the starting point. Why? Because when we have solidarity with each other, it ends or reduces almost every problem of humanity. You don't go to war with people that you think of as your "tribe", you only go to war with other "tribes". It's impossible to change the human nature that limits our feeling of who belongs to our "tribe", so the goal is to extend our tribe through REPRESENTATION. Communities vote on representatives, who share our values and represent our ideals and interests. That's on a local level, the size of at maximum a city. The local communities and their representatives come together regularly and discuss their ideas, and the representative communicates what's happening in the local government and takes responsibility. That's not like your town halls, that I've seen where the "representatives" talk down to their electorate. Recently they fear even coming there, because they are not doing what their constituents have voted them in for. In any case it's a system of several steps, from city, to province, to region, to country. The representatives from the different levels all come together regularly, in the same way that the citizens come together with their direct representative. It communicates up and down (vertical) and between the same levels (horizontal). At every level, there is a maximum of people who can just about have that "tribe" feeling together, from the city level, to the country level, because of that level approach. Very important is that every representative only has the job, as long as they have the support of their "tribe", and gets replaced at a vote's notice. That's the democratic system of government that my party has designed, and it is much different than any other party. There are also gatherings that skip levels, I'm going to a region conference on Saturday, which is for all local representatives and volunteers (just interested citizens) from the municipalities. That's where we meet each other, to get that "tribe" feeling with other provinces. That's how you organize solidarity, between people who normally wouldn't feel solidarity to each other.
Again, we didn't start with an idea of a government, we started with a goal. Many decades of philosophizing, scientific research and discussion has resulted in the policies and organization that the party now conveys. The discussions never stop, we go back to the bare basics every other year and the party program is discussed every year. Every member can propose any change. When they present their reason, the change can be voted in. My local board has changed one detail that we discussed.
I have a plan for something I want to change, next time.
Now you tell me how you want to achieve something for a whole country, when you get your helping neighbors system.
Prove him wrong, without personal attacks.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Julie Sweeney, a 53-year-old woman, was sentenced to 15 months in prison for posting an offensive and threatening message on a Facebook community group.
now leo, you should be able to see the slippery slope that precedent could lead into.
There is no law against criticizing Israel, but there are laws against directly threatening specific people with violence or death.
It's not just the UK where threatening other people with bodily harm or death
is illegal, it is illegal in the US too.
Every state in the U.S. has laws that prohibit threats of violence between citizens. Many states use terms like:
- "Criminal threats"
- "Terroristic threats"
- "Menacing"
- "Assault" (in some states, words alone can constitute assault)
These laws generally prohibit:
- Threatening to cause bodily harm or death
- Doing so in a way that puts the victim in reasonable fear
- Often requiring that the threat be intentional and specific
Who are you referring to, when you say "the brits put people in jail over facebook post"?
If it's the case that leopoldij is talking about, incitement is not protected free speech.
Is Hasan Piker accused of incitement, or are they just intimidating him, because he is criticizing Trump, which IS protected free speech?
um, a 1000 bucks per papoose born and given a social security number. then the parents and such can invest in this account over time.
kinda leaning towards socialism is it not>?
check this out
if you enforce the border,people stop trying to cross over,thus making our country safer.what a concept.
and then human trafficking them to a concentration camp in a dictatorship.
You are the criminals, and you turned America into a criminal regime.
That's not making your country safer. When the law is gone, it's gone FOR YOU TOO.
ICE is literally arresting people AFTER they showed proof that they are legal immigrants
or even citizens of the US. They are now Trump's Gestapo.
Sure, keep watching 'News'Max. Keep lying to yourself, by looking away.
Hitler had the same propaganda outlet, defending his holocaust.
Every Nazi who survived WWII either left Germany or felt guilt the rest of their lives.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
there is just a couple examples of issues with "documents".
are they real? who knows. i could get a fake id and it say i was elon musk but it wouldn't take long for a government official to spot a issue with my documentation.
You have provided no evidence of any of them deserving life imprisonment
in a El Salvador concentration camp. Baseless allegations, nothing more.
Everyone has constitutional rights to due process.
There is NO justification for a country breaking the law,
even when it's related to people breaking the law.
You have turned your country into a shit-hole country.
I'm not saying trump WILL destroy America, because he already has.
Why did Republicans ever call themselves the "Party of Law and Order"?
They're the "Party of Crime, Corruption and Anti-Democracy" now.
how can you rationalize that?
there is nothing giving the illegals any more rights than natural born citizens,nor is there anything written giving them the rights to our assistance programs. these things are meant for citizens unless it is a liberal bunch then they will drive past a homeless veteran to give goods and services to a illegal, the bastards.
we have a issue with gangs coming into the us, robbing peoples homes and fleeing back to their shit hole countries,impossiable to catch.
you don't seem to have any concept of law and it's enforcement.
prison is not supposed to be fun, hell if it was, honest people would want to go there.
Many of them have green cards or had gotten asylum.
You keep saying shit that should be proven in court first.
It's because of YOUR RIGHTS, that they should have rights.
What right will you lose, if they get due process? NOTHING!!!
If Joe Rogan understands this, it's very clear, because he's a dumb-ass.
only registered users can see external links
That's what happens when you don't care about people's rights.
You support taking away people's rights, making everything like that worse.
When YOU don't care about other people rights, that's the result you get.
When you don't care about the rights of some people, EVERYONE LOSES.
Those are the basic principles your founding fathers based your country on.
When you don't understand that, they should put YOU trough the naturalization process, because you're UN-American.
They are innocent American citizens, until you prove they are not.
Do you understand anything about how the law works?
How would you like to be arrested for murder, and you're just executed?
The police says they found this dead person near your house, so you're guilty.
No lawyer, no judge, they just say you did it, and put you on the electric chair.
That's what you support.
By law, countries have a responsibility to accept real refugees, even if they entered a country illegally. That's because some people are fleeing for their lives. That always takes preference over laws on border security. That's why everyone has a RIGHT to be heard by a court of law.
Additionally, ICE has been caught kidnapping many people who DID show them their PAPERS. They WERE legally living and working in your country, but they got human trafficked to a concentration camp in the OG Banana Republic ANYWAY. That's a crime, committed by your government. Since your government is now committing many crimes, that's why they don't want any judges involved.
You're the one not thinking this thru. You're the one supporting crimes, I'm not.
I'm perfectly fine with deporting illegals, ones a judge determines them to be an illegal, and not a real refugee. EVERYONE has rights, according to your Constitution. Those rights don't fall away when someone breaks the law.
You don't need to be a citizen of the US, to be protected against a fascist who wants to lock you away for the rest of your life, no matter what laws you broke.
Trump is literally ignoring a 9/0 Supreme Court judgement.
How is that not cause for his immediate removal from office?
If Biden had done that, you wanted him executed the same day.
send them out if they are illegal.
of course they are running for their lives, they didnt have shit at home so they came here to get shit and have a better life. not many are actually targets of a drug cartel or other threat of violence.
Now you think this will take ages? Don't act like you're stupid.
Do you know how long a murder trail lasts?
Let's skip that, when you're accused of it. Let's assume you're just lying.
"send them out if they are illegal"
How many times do I need to repeat that they are locked up in a prison camp, known for beating people to death, in a Banana Republic?
The record shows that at least 90% of them have committed NO CRIMES. Some of them are indeed illegal, but lots of them HAD LEGAL STATUS.
They are locking up people for LIFE over there, and you keep defending that. That's worse than what you would get for one or two murders. Do you think that's fitting punishment for just being in your country without permission?
You cannot make me understand that, because I am a decent human being.
You obviously are NOT.
And just because Biden looked the other way and gave them app does not mean legal.
Stay in YOUR lane cunt-
He didn't lock up LEGAL immigrants in a concentration camp for life.
If you used your brain, I wouldn't need to get out of my lane.
If you were not so clearly wrong all the time, we could actually have a discussion on what decisions would improve our lives. Instead you are defending EVIL, because you're told that the other side wants to replace you with brown people.
Why don't you recognize the most transparent lies in history, that have been used to trick people, to support evil for thousands of years?
"Them people want hurt you! We hurt them first, GRUNT!!"
only registered users can see external links
cat worships the soil obama spat on, did she miss this back when it happened?
However, you're probably including everyone who was apprehended on the border.
I'm not complaining when you put them back on the other side of it immediately, IF you also provide them with options to request asylum legally, which Democrats have been fighting for, for decades, and was denied and crushed by Republicans for decades.
Trump isn't just apprehending people on the border, he is letting ICE kidnap LEGAL, undocumented and ILLEGAL immigrants alike, who have been in your country working and paying taxes for often many years, and transporting them to a prison camp in the worst dictatorship in South America. He's braking the law and refusing to listen to judges and even the Supreme Court.
Obama didn't do any of that. You're spouting record levels of False Equivalence.
but you don't have to be this clear about it.
Maybe the cunt should pay attention to what the migrants are doing to his country... rapes, robberies, etc are all on the rise..
No matter what the stats tell you that are manipulated
That's not the issue here. Trump is putting people in a El Salvador prison camp, who were LEGALLY living in your country and did NOT BREAK THE LAW.
Those prisons are FUCKING HORRIBLE and they are LOCKED UP FOR LIFE.
You wouldn't even do that to a murderer. And these people are INNOCENT!
Your horrible regime is making up bullshit about MS13 tattoos.
Even if it was true, but it's not, is a tattoo now a life sentence crime?
By the way, your crime is NOT on the rise, it's been lowering for years.
The only crime that is going up is mass murder with AR-13s.
And that's your own stupid people, mostly right-wing lunatics.
only registered users can see external links
Ban doritos!
I guess kennedy is right:
Eating doritos make you gay.
Ah, yes, they also give you autism.
Well, at least you were way ahead of them.
I buy the real Doritos maybe 3 times per year.
I liked the concept of Doritos Roulette. We had that a few times.
Unfortunately the hot ones weren't really that hot.
I think Doritos Flamin' Hot has a whole bag of those hot ones
and I eat those like they are paprika chips.
I hope for you that Duke's Mayo won't go woke. The owner, Sauer Brands Inc.,
in Greenville, was recently sold to a Advent International, a northern firm.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
They make a damn woke first impression. Just saying.
New Comment Go to top