As I understand the idea of "taxation without representation," simply have an elected representative is "good enough."

But, I can't but help feel that I do not really have a representative at any level of the government. I mean, how many elected officials are:

-- biseuxal
-- androgyne
-- Buddhistic Christo-Pagan
-- non-partisan (this is NOT the same as Independent)
-- environmentalist, but also an angler and hunter

And even if there are elected officials who fall into any of those categories, none of them seem to be representatives for my area.

Of course, I can't say to the Franchise Tax Board and the IRS that since none of my reps fall into the above categories and therefore I am not truly represented, I shouldn't have to pay taxes.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't feel represented at any level of the government: national, state, or local.

I'm guessing I'm not alone in feeling this way?

All are created equal. The only label that counts is citizen.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on June 18, 2008, 12:23:40 PM
I'm guessing I'm not alone in feeling this way?

Hence me being an Anarchist. The only person who can represent me adequately is, well, ME!!!


~Simone.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 18, 2008, 02:37:14 PM
All are created equal. The only label that counts is citizen.

As recent legislation regarding same-sex marriage shows, all might be created equal but not all are treated equal. Ask any non-heterosexual, non-Christian, or non-partisan in the US if they feel they're equal to those in the majority groups and you'll probably be told that they are not treated as equals.

It does not grantee you are treated equal just that you are created equal. It is up to you to compete to be treated better.

Freedom means that your life is your responsibility not the Governments. Your are treated according to what you contribute.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on June 18, 2008, 12:23:40 PM
I'm guessing I'm not alone in feeling this way?

Hmmmm... let me think.  My MP is one of the most homophobic and transphobic people in parliament, and lead the opposition to transgender right.
I feel really well represented...

Democracy enpowers majorities, anyone in a minority can only hope that the rest of the population wants to treat them fairly.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 11:46:37 AM
Your are treated according to what you contribute.

Wrong.

Bigots will treat people as they see fit, regardless of what people contribute.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 11:46:37 AM
Freedom means that your life is your responsibility not the Governments. Your are treated according to what you contribute.

In an ideal world maybe... But thats not the world we live in 

Quote from: jenny_ on June 19, 2008, 01:58:20 PM

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 11:46:37 AM
Freedom means that your life is your responsibility not the Governments. Your are treated according to what you contribute.

In an ideal world maybe... But thats not the world we live in 

Rupaul does not have a problem.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 02:32:33 PM
Rupaul does not have a problem.

And you imagine that why, Lisa? Because they have money and fame etc? But, you never heard the slurs they did and/or do. You've not experienced their attempts to perhaps be a physicist instead of an entertainer. It's really naive, I think, to walk around thinking that our quality will show as evidenced by material comfort or fame.

How many distinguished men and women of color have been pulled over by the cops in a neighborhood "they didn't belong in" when they lived up the next driveway? I have no idea either, but I'm reasonably certain it's happened well more than once.

To make an argument that financial success brings an equal level of respect and good-will seems to me to be irrational.

It will, no doubt bring a rather even level of taxation from said government you dislike so in your pursuit of freedom, or pursuit of lonliness. About time we realized that Ayn Rand had a rather juvenile and extreme romantic faith in ultra-individualism. That basically leads us to a notion that we can subsist well without anything from anyone else.

Life proves the opposite in its living.

Nichole

It is a trade off freedom verse controls. If you want every move controlled by government than demand protection from every possible hazard. It did not work with alcohol it is not possible with tobacco and has not worked with race. The only way people will treat other's fairly is if they have something that is of value to them be it art, comfort, goods, entertainment, or any other social desire that brings people together. Sometimes you have to enlighten others with something that they find interesting. It will never happen by force of law. If you think a contribution means only money you are not understanding what is important to the public. They want security in that they can live the life style they believe is important for them and hope to have there children live. They fear their children not being able to reproduce and carry on. The contribution must not be a threat to the life style they want to live. I would never want to work or live with people that did not want me and would never seek to force it on them. It is much better to build up good will and give favors than demand respect.

Everybody for himself is good if your on top of your game, but many in society for multiple reasons, some structural, many are not. There's a reason why communism
was so strong in the 30's in the US until the new deal and WWII was able to get
the country out of the deep doo doo out of control government laisez faire at the US and international level had led it too.

There's a need to balance individual rights with collective rights and responsability.

In many countries, with extreme taxation, people are actually proud that they care of everyone and their economy and standards of living is actually very very high (higher than the US). Most scandinavian countries for example.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 07:22:42 PM
It is a trade off freedom verse controls. If you want every move controlled by government than demand protection from every possible hazard. It did not work with alcohol it is not possible with tobacco and has not worked with race. The only way people will treat other's fairly is if they have something that is of value to them be it art, comfort, goods, entertainment, or any other social desire that brings people together. Sometimes you have to enlighten others with something that they find interesting. It will never happen by force of law. If you think a contribution means only money you are not understanding what is important to the public. They want security in that they can live the life style they believe is important for them and hope to have there children live. They fear their children not being able to reproduce and carry on. The contribution must not be a threat to the life style they want to live. I would never want to work or live with people that did not want me and would never seek to force it on them. It is much better to build up good will and give favors than demand respect.

I still find this hard to swallow.

Using this idea, people like Matthew Shepherd and Gwen Araujo were murdered because of what the contributed or failed to contribute to society. They were murdered because they failed to convince others of their worth.

If you want every move controlled by government than demand protection from every possible hazard. It did not work with alcohol it is not possible with tobacco and has not worked with race.

Not to mention the total failure with drugs.

I must have missed something, as I don't recall ever saying I wanted protection from every hazard. Nor did I say I wanted every move controlled by the government.

All I said was that I don't really feel represented in government. Sure, I'm a citizen and that's supposed to be good enough. But it doesn't change the fact that there are few if any people who actually represent me as a person in government.

The idea that a person's worth is dependent on what the contribute or not to society is truly offensive to me. I've certainly been told how worthless I am because of my contributions or lack thereof. And, the standards of the worth of my contributions and therefore my worth as a person always very based on the person doing the judging.

It seems awfully close to bigotry to declare another as worthless when compared to one's own standards.

All I said was that I don't really feel represented in government.

That's because you are not really rich or a huge corportation.  If you were one of those oil companies you would not only feel represented, you would feel pride of ownership.

Quote from: tekla on June 22, 2008, 01:15:33 PM
All I said was that I don't really feel represented in government.

That's because you are not really rich or a huge corportation.  If you were one of those oil companies you would not only feel represented, you would feel pride of ownership.

Now that really sums it up.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on June 22, 2008, 01:39:00 PM

Quote from: tekla on June 22, 2008, 01:15:33 PM
All I said was that I don't really feel represented in government.

That's because you are not really rich or a huge corportation.  If you were one of those oil companies you would not only feel represented, you would feel pride of ownership.

Now that really sums it up.

Maybe we should form a transnational transgender corporation  > >

Tekla can be our lobbyist 

Z

Quote from: lisagurl on June 19, 2008, 07:22:42 PM
It is a trade off freedom verse controls. If you want every move controlled by government than demand protection from every possible hazard. It did not work with alcohol it is not possible with tobacco and has not worked with race.

If you're talking about absolutes I suppose you're right.  But life isn't about absolutes and social change happens incrementally.  By that measure you're wrong about all 3.  Prohibition did not stop people from drinking.  In fact the number of people that drank increased as women were added to the ranks.  But the quantity and acceptability changed markedly.  Drinking in the morning used to be common and acceptable.  Many men needed an eye-opener before work.  If a man came home drunk and wanted sex, it was perfectly legal to rape his wife (until the 1970s).  If he beat her and went too far and killed her, well accidents happen.  Drinking at lunch was common, too.  There are lots of us that recall the 3 martini lunch, if not for ourselves then certainly for our parents.

At its peak in the 1950s and 60s 56% of Americans smoked cigarettes.  The figure is now less than half that amount and dropping.  Average life spans have increased dramatically, too.

Until 1967 most states had antimiscegination laws prohibiting marriage between different races.  Blacks were routinly denied voting and many otheer civil rights in large parts of the country.  And let's not get into gender and sexual orientation.

Things have improved a lot and most with the aid of government action or regulation.


BTW, Ayn Rand fellates Karl Marx in Hell!  >

If you want to see how it was in the 60's
for women and how people drank and smoked, download
a "Mad Men" episode off the net.

The pilot is very representative of the serie.