Kaz Lokuciewski

You seem to miss the idea that your shower you can shower children with love, challenge them with logic and...when they have simply committed evil or lost it..given them a spank. I have enough examples around me of destructive children who are a law above their parents mad. It's not just the parenting though. In two examples there only one such child in 2 and the other is one such child in three. Judging by apparent natural character alone I would have had 1 in 2 had I adopted 'we argue until you give up' technique. We have a loving happy home because no-one bothers having three year old tantrums any more. I think this new 'never spanked no matter what' generation is not proving to be better than their parents of their parent before them. On the contrary...

No. Because I was not terrified of my father. At the same time..when those who did not know how to take control of my rage...and THEN reason with me (I hated the lecture..that was the worst bit) But..to get me to open my mind to the fact that I was going to have to stop and reason...someone had to take charge of a destructive force. It seems to me that there is almost as much what I call negative negative development as negative positive. You have made it clear that you were presented with dominating corporal punishment delivered with rage and not followed up with reason. From that you appear to have taken a negative (I reject) to his negative (violent imposition of will). You saw it as an injustice. I did not see it as an injustice (most of the time) I was trying to get what I wanted and smashing anything and everything if I could not get it. We are also genetically different. You might not look back on your childhood and think..god I was a little sod , thank got my dad was there to manage me where sweet nurtured others could not. Later in my development (I decided to be good at 11) my father drank too much and allowed me to join him. I though the drink caused all sort of problems (I was older by then) I was the only 16 year old who was T total by choice. My old school mates with traditional parenting..plenty of them chain smoking...lots of drinking..I'd day 2 in 8 to their significant detriment. There are genetics to this, or learning. My Half brother 18 years younger hardly drinks too without the negative negative role response..I like to think it's more my positive positive but we could just have sensitive tummies (I do not suffer handovers when I have drunk) Regarding cycle of violence...I really think your fighting a loosing battle with nature. I have a friend into warhammer with 2 boys, constant play fighting, no problems and another friend ..vegan.boy girl.neither hit their children... . We had a old band get together at the Vegan peaceful house and the two boys were playfighting and the vegans boy joined in. It started ok...then the vegan boy started competing harder and harder and then smashed his foot as hard down on the other boy as he could. The playfight boys were shocks as were the parents. Westling, competing, testing ourselves is part of our nature..in all things. This boy had not been taught how to control his violence urges in an unusual situation (I going to guess he was 10 at the time) but he fell to trying to hurt someone as soon as he began to loose a test of strength. You can't train on instincts by pretending that they don't exist, for example the instinct to like the idea of having sex with hot women. You have to be open and lead by example. I am faithful because I'm proud to step up the the challenge. Meanwhile..take the old ugly kid from school who married his first girlfriend, give him two drinks and then, if a total hotty start snogging him...he responds in kind. No experience with controlling nature, better to do that before you have a wife and kids. To show that you ONLY use your force to stop a violent destructive injustice...but not to use it to force you will on others teaches children when they should use their power. It also helps alleviate their fear when they are presented with a destructive force (and they will be). I shuld imagine the peaceful kids would be more likely to do something drastic for lack of a viable solution to there escalating fear, or an ability to diffuse the situation (which can be as much as wearing confidence on your face) If you do not...the experiments they run for themselves (we are human, it's what we do) will likely be wider and no necessarily come out in the right place if...when they first discover the power of might...they ARE the biggest and the strongest. Stephs migrant video being a good one for the futility of peaceful parenting as the solution to political corruption. Young men vying for diminishing supply of females being a force of nature no training can control.

Good for you. Standing by your ideals. Too high to soon though. Better to start with something everyone agrees on. pic.twitter.com/J0uVyBQDlP You would not be able to trust that your product was as described and get your money back, or even that your supplier was supplying a genuine apple product (assuming you have developed a reason to trust the brand) after 3 years they could force it to stop working and secretly re-brand the next product to force you to buy the next thing...or they could steal your personal photos and blackmail you. All these problems, while they can be governed in an anarchic way..would be so complicated, I simply do not think the would. Getting a bit fed up of the moderation on this site, In a nutshell, good for you standing. I think you have to start with common improvements for example a law that allowed a petition of 100,000 to convene a Jury. I made a branded meme photo a long time ago and linked to that on twitter. Do you now what the deal is with links to twitter or brands of ideas. Obviously Peacefull Parenting is not a problem but the Voter consumer rights system I put together is getting deleted. If you are the moderator reading this. A heads up please.

I don't believe you can train out humane character flaws and if you could, they are contagious. You would need not one injustice that someone is not willing to accept justice for. Not one assumed injustice that leads someone to seek misplace justice. Physical pain is how we learn not to kill ourselves, young men are hard wired to fight. I don't believe the change in humanity you are describing is biologically possible, let alone practically. I don't thing we are any better than we were. If your home had only enough food for 10% of you...as soon as one person turns to violence you will either have to choose to fight, kill your family humanely or watch them die. It's easy to feel superior when even if we don't work we can get fat and have social media to keep us occupied at home. The reality is that the fundamental skills needed to survive in a low each setting..we don't have and if we were to kill our own meat our attitudes may change.

I did an answer to this with an analogy of a car accident with my child and how I'd then my police would. But I can't see it and was wondering if it got moderated? Did you see it. A few answers seem to be getting moderated, nothing abusive, but it's just as likely that I can't find them in the mess of this format.

Some small childen, but not to obey and instruction. To stop freaking out and screaming. You can trap the in your arms for however long it takes. I have very close friends who peacefully negotiate with a young rage monster for hours, our holiday (group) were tied to his whims. My kids would never do that. I grab him firmly by one arm, drag him to a corner pin him down and give him an earful (bad cop mode) he can leave when it's over. This is NEVER about I want you to wear this or walk like that, it's about him being destructive etc. Tell everyone he's not going anywhere until he's stopped trying to get out of my grasp an apologized. 30 minutes later, his crying changes to one of anguish..he's given up. He goes to play with mum. Now here is the amazing bit. He makes something out of lego that afternoon, passes his parents and comes to ME so show me how clever his creation is. I tell him how clever he is too. It helps that we have a good play relationship too. I think you have to earn the right to use force, it must always be measured powerful control, not a fight. If you are not able to control you emotions you should never consider corporate punishment which I have used on my children. Over knedd spanking to acts of sheer evil (dangerous, destructful acts that they know is evil) at a time where straight to bed is not an option. We ARE animals and some people need to be shown that others have power..great power..and choose not to use it other than to enforce good, otherwise the kids don't know what their physical energy is for. There is also Pablos dog, to create a negative experience when they try to impose an injustice on someone else, a subconscious predisposition. Tough to my most peacefully parented Jahova whitness friend when for some reason at 18 he decided to try intimidating people for fun (when I was not there have a go at him) . It stopped when he got his teeth smashed in. Were you to meet us both then would have been sure we had each others upbringing. I remember as a child thinking the only person stronger than me was my dad. I was a little sod back then. Little sods need more discipline than most, but we can come out allright with parent who understand us. No. But I can think of plenty that would be very unlikely to exist in and would suffer worse corruption in the absence of regular elections of people who must appear to work for common law and human rights for the benefit of the majority. Would be better still if those people actually were (thus must constant plugging of voter consumer rights)

If you never voted for anyone who would not sign this..http://pic.twitter.com/J0uVyBQDlP You would start to reduce the power of the overlord. I see Democracy as being between anarchy and oligarchy and think we have oligarchy dressed as Democracy. It may well be that, if this law passed the oligarchy would be exposed and lead to a bloody revolution. Unfortunately I think we have reached the point where the masses would loose. WMD us from the safety of Rothschild island. But I hold my hopes. Whatever system there is, you hit the nail on the head, people have to be held accountable and that requires a system of some sort. Apple could not run that business in the absence of international trading agreement, mining rights, consumer protection for you, both in regards to function and safety.

You are the second person to complain that I've not anwered a question without specifying which or where I made the wrong assumption. I guessed on the other one, on yours I really have no idea. I don't think the road arguement is a silly one. I can see how under anarchy it could work...historically it simply did not. How wide would you build the car, would there be a tarrif, who checks if there should be a tarrif guy there or he's just an oportunist. the moment you form a concensus you have a governmnet. For them not to be coersive, you have to trust that the person you appoint will be accountable to a common law..to do that you need to aponing a legal team who is not coerced...to do that..you can see that there is noo end to the lack of trust. There is no perfect solution...but, no matter how you do it, at every step, if your official is not required to be transparent and accountable...and you for some reason feel compelled not to ask them to be...your not ready for an Anarchy either.

Peaceful parenting, to my mind, is irelevent of political ideology. There are two dogs in this world, some will not calm down until you tell them no and give them a firm tap (we evolved to have pain receptors to stop us doning something) and another dog will only calm down if you hug it shower it with love for the 10 minutes you can before it need to run around like a nutter fo a bit. We are not going to all suddently become unemotiol humans able to bestow an unbringing the removes the desire for some form of revenge on others. More and more I see that at least 30% of people are self destructive, stubborn. Some people need a firm hand when they are young, not necessarily for their own education, but to control all the damage and chaos they cause until they are ready for reason, 2-3 in most kids. After that I think reason and punichment works best, but you are suuming that the parents are perfect, have no medical reason to be unfair and are never accidently seek fair justice for a wrong that actually did not occur, Should anyt of those things happens. Violence is a nature solution too, you don't need to teach people to give up on reason, get stubborn and and seek violent justice, there is no way you are going to teach in 1 generation (it would have to irradicate it all in one go if we were all to train non-violent humans and then move to anarchy, assuming violence would neet to be used to defend against violence and the peacefull kids are not to be immediately supressed violently. I don't know about you but I've encounterd people who get agry and egetatied in a reasoned debate such as this. So even those who profess to be peacefull are often harboring rage monsters waiting to snap. The posting system is a bit of a mess. There are a lot of people posting all sorts. If you have any logical answers I'm all ears. I see this as all pretty obbious once you break it down. I'm not seeking humility from you. You seem to have asumed saome form of heirachy and become insulted ober someone having a different opinion. This is why Anarchy does not last s a structure. You need structure to achieve reasoned progress even if it's wrong. Even here, all I'm sugesting is that you don't vote for anyone that refused to provide you with a contract to propose and support certain bills. Now that you are aware of the idea, is it not silly to do so? Assuming you don't vote, but are trapped in a country running a governmnet structure that is more opressive than it could be, would it not be productive to stand or support someone who WILL commit to oposing somthing? If you have answers I'm all ears. I have blogs too..I'm not going to ask you to do 15 hours of research to answer a very simple question.

I which case you should be in support of voter consumer rights. It's about removing cohersion. Hey, I'd support all legislative heriachy being re-electied every 4 years and only ever standing one term and needing steer clear of revolving door work for the rest of their lives. I'm not going to be able to eliminate coersive rulers when I don't even demand a contract along those lines when they stand..or offer to stand along those lines so that fellow anarchists can tell me from a coersive ruler.

Small projects are doable, but energy, sewage, roads, national health. That takes funds / collective organisation beyond you employing people with money that does not exist , promises you can't keep or land you can't protect. At some point you will have to be the doer in something you are unable to trust you have fair access to. Then there is not enough to go round, 'Whose child gets the eye treatment today' and it decends into poplar anarchy. The moment the vioence starts..you need a system that can make it stop and the only force that can do that must be 1. Big enough and 2. If it is to have lastig legitamacy, provide fair justice afterwards. Without fair justice...the violence is simley put on hold until the parents stop watching.

No. But if run my child over in your car, I'd want the people in my community who corporate as a police force to arrest you, the lawyers in my community (you will be appointed one if you want) to gather evidence and a Judge to decide what your penance should be. I will carry on making training on medical products because left to anarchy I would have to stop doing that, potentially murder the wrong person and then have a member of your family go after my family. I'd also not want you to drive a car on our roads without being qualified and insured. I don't care how the standards for the training and insurance is agreed, I simply can't see a solution being proposed without 10 people really working on that while the rest of us get on with the stuff we need to feed our kids. You would not have the freedom to place my family at risk. So long as co-exist..that means some rules. What I want you do do...is not let crony liars impose themselves on you you do this by supporting only those who prove themselves to you by providing an Anarchic Private contract backed by accountability. In all likelihood it means you have no-one to vote for anyway since 0.01% of people might offer and about 5% of people are scum, but at least if you take that approach...an Anarchist might stand and create more anarchy in the Oligarchy. an Oligarchy is dependent on subversion and control of all elements. Anarchy is the essence of no control so a few Anarchists in government right now (demanding a 911 investigation) would be great. Our government does not require a private contract of required action by political candidates. To provide one would be therefore Anarchic.

I'm of the mind that most of us have the disposition to operate in the peaceful, don't hurt me, I won't hurt you..realm. Thus my fundamental problem with anarchy is that I feel that the rule of might well be much more prevalent under anarchy. You can see it in the global violence and corruption correlations. When the rule of law fails, you get less enforcement on violence and then Yoda logic kicks in. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger etc. No matter what your system, if you plan to raise your children in a relatively safe environment, you do need a militia to protect the rule of law (violence, possessions etc). Then you need to judge, penance..you can see how quickly you end up needing a way to govern all that, you can't have everyone shouting 'Throw them in the pit' with half the evidence. Anyone who knew they were innocent would then decide to retaliate against the Pitt callers..it would escalate quickly with nothing in place to calm it down other than last man standing. I'm new to this? I'm not interested in Satanism (though I understand many believe that the New World Order are actually following that agenda. I'm of the mind they simply intend to manage the heard through the manipulation of currency.

I feel like I did. What don't you understand. Your A B scenario in my mind is does not describe the scenario. I suspect I was more focused on the solution and the the 'loaded' question. I confess I'm hoping you etc will get into the habit of asking politico's (canvassers, candidates) just for the bills the candidate is willing to be obliged to propose and support. Even if your not interested in voting it's a great way of telling them to piss off from the higher moral ground. Reverting to the title of my question, ignoring the opening statement for the analgy. . A: People who are willing to make blind emotional decisions when appointing representatives (who must at least appear to be acting for the common good under common law) Governmnet Democracy B: Would be able to achieve a better consensus on decisions and act efficiently in structure made up of many individuals or limited commual groups with their own militias..or none? I suspect not.

Assuming we all did something of common value for x hours / week how many hours / week would we need to work for all to maintain this quality of life? It's a long random idea but I'd go 20 hours / week / 16-65 year old at current global populations (nature provides without work less / head as we get more heads) Then it comes down to the people around you. Around me..if the average person had only 20 hours / week of value to add to have their needs met..they either work an extra 20+ hours and try to claim more stuff OR they start to become bored and destructive. This may well be the result of establishment education , however..establishment education we have..therefore...to control the potential challenging power of over workers and the potential destructive force of underutilized people...debt creates a requirement to get started AND reduces disposable income and time proportional. I'm not a fan of that by the way. I try to enter the mind of the beast I'm facing.

Almost all major infrastructure project, although stolen through capitalism now, were created through the scale of communal investment that can only be achieved by a democracy. Doing everything yourself better is a long slow process, we also have the problem that you need to protect your family from the worst of people. If your child survives your death and grows up, what will they do to the family that grows up in the home you build before it was taken?

Let me know where there is a landmass I can use and no-one will come and claim to rule me. Since that place can never exist, it kind of explains why there is no lasting Anarchy (all life starts as anarchy and most non heard animal life is.

I think you hit the nail on the head. In a democracy are not supposed to 'elect a master'. You are supposed to appoint a trusted volunteers for a while to make fair judgements that tow the popular line. This interests me because I see no way of creating change unless members of our community wake up to the idea that, when appointing someone into a position of responsibility (be it within an Anarchy) the worst of people will put themselves forwards. To allow those people to lie and retain their position is so obviously, unbelievably stupid and irresponsible to your loved ones that I find it hard to believe that any rational person, who has been presented with an alternative option, should do so. My route to activism, if you were, was that I started giving The Green Party money and was asked to stand as a local council 'paper' candidate. Having interacted with some of the characters I became suspicious as to their apparent 'selfless' intentions. Having as selfless as you can get intentions and recognizing the need for accountability I felt that, to stand as someone I would vote for, I should make a contract. The Green party forbade me from doing so. I did anyway. I was the one of two Green candidate to come as high as second of about and one won, out of about 20 (I live in a very wealthy areas where 70% of voters vote conservative) the one that won had 20 activists campaigning for him for a month..and now he does nothing of value, diminishing the brand. By standing for election I discovered all the other problems. The lack of state publication, the power of armies of activists going door to door campaigning on behalf of someone they have never met talking about issues that person will never hear. I considered how to unrig the system, in the mind of the narcissist, until I had no way to circumvent acting on popular opinions I needed to suggest support for to get elected. No matter which way I looked at it, voters had to be able to compare actions backed by accountability (just like any other service contract) The clever bit was the idea that they COULD commit to proposing and supporting bills. Not successfully passing any bills. Any candidate who promises to pass a bill is a liar, US president could commit to an executive order. I think you accept this status quo purely out of habit and were you to rule the world..required to set up a democracy..you would start under the terms I have described. The problem comes in changing the bad habbits most of us still have and many are unaware of but, like any obvious improvement, this should happen organically. It just has to be simple. Once some fair representatives stand, other voters will come to expect it a transparent comparable action plan. As soon as that happens every liar will be asked 'will you commit to that' for every cheap promise they deliver. Their 'We need to clean up the dirty money in politics' statement will be confronted with 'what bill will you commit to' and they will have no escape. Once that's the norm..we can start talking about democracy..or anarchy if that is what we want. At the moment we have a silent Oligarchy and they crush anarchists much more quickly and violently than democrats. As an Anarchist under social democracy, as long as your freedoms do not infringing on someone elses freedom you would be largely left alone by the state enforcers. An Oligarchy will demand you do an ever increasing amount of slave labour or provide funds in one of your lovely US private incarceration cash cows.

I have one agenda. That's voter consumer rights. It started 3 years ago like that. I had to develop an framework to neuter the arguments of candidate who argue that they need some flexibiility. I stood because no-one else would (follow the campaign, started a year before with asking others to stand and me fund them) (money where mouth is) there is no revenue stream. I naturally assume that everyone has a potential vested interest (especially in politics) that's why I put on my evil head and tried to come up up with a solution to each trick. Regardless of my loss making no revenue vested interests. Does having consumer rights for every product or service except your political one not pose a fundamental problem? Clue. If you think politicians lie to win election your answer is yes. Anarchy is a free evolutionary market. Kinda OK when power is based on how big you are and how long your stick is. The moment you have automated 'kill, enslave, steal' drones...anachy can't operate democratically. Right now I suspect the 1% could overpower the 99% No. Because the worst individual freedoms use their freedom to impose on anothers. The more peaceful type who wish to protect their children from slavery therefore agree a structure that ONLY limits the Freedom to impose on anothers freedom. For example the Freedom not to get beaten up and have your things stolen. I think the 90% have evolved to buy into the idea of do unto others as you would etc..The point of Voter Consumer Rights is to make them informed about the 0.01% who stand for election. 70% vote so no worries about the top 10% winning if their candidates have to be honest to the remaining 60% Democracy is indeed majority forcing it's will on the minority. Anarchy is the most strongest and most vicious doing what the hell they can to a peaceful society. You see that in the Middle Easy now. That's Anarchy, small Waring fractions. don't blame the religious head, take away that and you would perhaps have a few more factions. I guess you have never worked in a business where lots of people collectively work together to produce something of value. I see government as a business. Their product is stability, sustainable growth, happiness and (should be) equality. They must therefore 1 provide protection to populace from groups who wish to limit their freedom not to be assaulted or stolen from. Ebay sellers are subject to state laws that protect the consumer should the product not arrive or not be to standard. All I'm saying is that if candidates can lie about every policy they say they would support (in your case, the abolition of government and move towards an anarchic state). So, as a Rothschild, if you movement got a following, I would simply fund a really good fake Ararchist to stand as you candidate saying that they would do those things, if he did actually win (I'd make sure he lost some votes along the way doing something unpopular) he still would not call the bill. Much like Syrza defaulting on EU. False Flag operation. So even you anarchists are arguing against the rights you would NEED to demand get what you want. And all that's required a contract (like you have inherently when you buy a sandwich) for what is effectively a 5 year deal involving all your wealth? Really smart there dude.

Are we talking about democracy or freedom. Freedom. I suspect we are more free than we would be in an Anarchic scenario with different warring fractions developing limited ideals of what is acceptable enforced by the most brutal. 3rd world. Democracy is irrelevant to individual freedom since it is supposed to be about what the average person would like the limits of the law to be. Since the vote is / person, that is the check / balance that stops the wealthy from rigging the laws. Since most voters want banksters in Jail rather than the banks (pension funds) fined, and lying politicians made to step down and definitely not take pay rise with a company they helped while 'serving', then I would say we are walking democratically. The masses are resolved to the Democratic freedom limits that should be set on the representatives to profit from financial trickery and the revolving door, yet these clear democratically supported ideas are not being proposed and supported by elected officials. We are running on Freedom (slavery to the rich is what happens when you have complete freedom), and democracy, which is supposed to ensure that Freedom is limited to one that is in the best interest of the common man..is not counteracting the dangers of anarchic Freedom...because the voting public have been duped into thinking that their vote is a process where they select one of several uncountable stranger for whome there is no central point of comparable reliable information, not that there can be any information! There are no facts because there is requirement to provide an accountable mandate. Much like a camera is required to list it's specifications and warranty terms etc They still do their marketing, but clever consumers ignore that and look at the specs. Presently we are unable to be 'clever consumers' in any situation of appointing a leader. If we won't stand and offer facts..we can't complain. If we won't do that...we are most certainly not going to find anarchy and prettier.

Wrong analogy. Mine is don't ask society to run when it can not even walk yet. In terms of Group A and Group B 99.9% are group A and wish to elect 0.1% Group B who looks out for their best interest and not abuse the innate ability to cheat and get rich. They want a political market of representation. 0.1% To get into group B you must have teams of people and media promoting you for months, you are allowed to say anything that you will be uncountable to AFTER the election. The political market makes representation impossible. Check out the idea behind SMART-voter.org. It's just common sense. If voters won't do that (under another brand, the concept is simple)..they are not ready for anarchy, in which there could be no online shopping etc because all trading contracts will be as loose as political contracts. There is no enlightened decision in anarchy because you literally have to guess if you have more weapons than them when ripping someone off. The purpose of a society is that you have the right to be enlightened, and we are, no one can sell you a fake camera and keep your money. Ever been shopping in a Medina in morocco? Anarchic negotiating is a slow painful gamble.

Check out SMART-voter.org as a concept. It's pretty simple. As your candidate to sign a contract to propose as a matter of priority support (not pass) certain policies. If none of your representatives will...it's time for you tor present. What honest representative would refuse to prioritize most of these. pic.twitter.com/lCOUbMU4YF

Group A: Can (must) use violence. Group B: Must never use violence. You can't base a society on two contradictory rules and expect violence, theft, and evil to decrease. I don't see that as a valid analogy. If you can't walk should you attempts to run would be more appropriate. Trying to contextualize your AB as a contradiction. Group A: Require no obligation to follow their mandate when controlling public money. Group B: Say exactly what they are going to support and do not attempt to profit. I'm saying what we need is Group A: Request contractual obligation and stand as a candidate if denied. Group B: Must list activities and follow them to get elected. It's really very simple. Under an Anarchic system where a local community has formed, the successful local anarchist merchant will have to sell goods and services honestly, if not, he will loose his trade or perhaps get murdered. Because there is no possible Local accountability in the products and services of a politician we must adopt the same principles as we do with online shopping and payment. I think even anarchists can agree that we would not have online shopping without the consumer rights we have devised. However, if..as an anarchist, you were stupid enough to transfer your family home to you children through a solicitor, They could then just take it and paid some thugs with 10% of the profit to keep you away or kill you off. So if your not enlightened enough to require an accountable mandate from your political candidate, you're surely a dodo in an anarchic system.

I'm often amazed by the level of discussion people, who think most politicians are corrupt, go into over all sorts of policy details. I think engaging in these debates adds credibility and hope where there should be none and distracts from what we should be doing, which is continuously driving the discussion back to the founding problem we have with any form of elected government. For a democratic decision to be made, voters must be able to make an informed choice. For voters to make an informed choice, candidates must be transparent and honest about what they intend to attempt and, once elected, be accountable to trying primarily to achieve those things. When you buy a sandwich you have the right to a list of ingredients and money back guarantee if those ingredients are missing. When you buy a service that is not provided you have the right to you money back. When you buy a candidate (with your vote, worth about £42k over 5 years in the UK) you have very few rights. So when you do engage in a high end political discussion, or interact with a seemingly lovely stranger on your doorstep who sings the praises of another stranger who the would like you to vote for. Please drive the discussion back to where it should be. Do not vote for a strangers stranger without requiring them to provide you with the 'Voter Consumer Rights' you and your community need and deserve to be protected from rip off merchants. If an educated public can not even request facts from representatives seeking election...we are far from ready for functioning anarchy. https://www.facebook.com/smart.voter.org/photos/pb.1415501838715507.-2207520000.1443447230./1625156991083323/?type=3&theater Please consider the system suggested in http://smart-voter.org