Discourse and critical thinking are essential tools when it comes to securing progress in a democratic society. But in the end, unity and engaged participation are what make it happen.

Conflict is not unavoidable. However, it is nonsensical to consider the institution of a state as a solution to the problem of possible conflict, because it is precisely the institution of a state which first makes conflict unavoidable and permanent.

The proposal to quit voting is basically revolutionary; it amounts to a shifting of power from one group to another, which is the essence of revolution. As soon as the nonvoting movement got up steam, the politicians would most assuredly start a counterrevolution. Measures to enforce voting would be instituted; fines would be imposed for violations, and prison sentences would be meted out to repeaters.

When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as __uman rights_ versus __roperty rights._ No human rights can exist without property rights.

Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics__r by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia__r partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same.

I don't think this one's business as usual. Me evil cunt sense is tinglin'.