Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2005-12-11 03:08:13
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

in response to the various comments above:

first of all, i advocate an intelligent dictatorship. i didn't say anything about communism. it's funny how people can't keep two completely unrelated things straight in their heads, but most westerners have an understandably skewed view of communism.

secondly, a dictatorship does not equal the stripping away of individual rights. stupid dictators do that to [ineffectively] consolidate their power. smart dictators let people have their illusion of freedom so they'll be happy and don't even want to rebel. let's not kid anyone, we have a lot of personal freedom in the US, but where does it really get us? a large segment of the population was against this administration, against the war in iraq, against the government-corporate collusion that we all know is going on. they march and vote and demonstrate, but what good did it do? we're still in iraq, bush is still in power, and halliburton is still landing all the big contracts. what we really have is the ILLUSION of freedom. yes we can act and say what we like, because we think that's sufficient to make change. in reality, we've been duped into thinking our choices make a difference and placated like so many sheep, while those in control go about their business.

people in the USA act like their precious freedoms are so sacred. what can you really get away with? you can do what you want, as long as you don't break any laws. you can badmouth the government all you like, but when was the last time a guy yelling slogans on the street corner brought down the government? face the facts - you are an insignificant speck in the ocean of the national population. give you your rights, or take them away, it makes very little difference to the nation's welfare as a whole. you have been victim of the ILLUSION of liberty. you are only marginally more free than a citizen of communist china, because outside of those political restrictions i mentioned, there are still more layers of infringements on your freedom. you are a witless pawn of economic forces beyond your control. you must adhere to social conventions and possibly religious limitations. you are compelled to behave in ways consistant with the general cultural schema - how free are you, really?

a smart dictator is someone who has the interest of the entire nation on his mind. he can take away your freedom, if you break his laws, the same way the NYPD can arrest you and lock you up. but he does not infringe on the people's rights if he can help it - that makes them unhappy and unwilling to follow his orders. at the same time, a competent leader is at once obvious to the people. they can tell if he's done a good job, and will learn to trust him. it is a spirit of cooperation that drives the ideal dictatorship, like a king and his loyal subjects, not some gruesome oppression painted by FOX news.

there's a lot more to this, but i'll keep it relatively short, as people tend to get bored.
2005-12-11 04:01:23
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
Sorry but you don't seem to understand what a dictatorship is. A king is a form of oppression because the ability to chose one's leaders is inherent to freedom. A dictatorship goes against those freedoms by putting power in the hands of one individual. To think that you could ever find one person that everyone could agree on is ridiculous and to think that any individual would not be corrupted with absolute power shows a complete lack of understanding of the human psyche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

Ejumakate yourself.
2005-12-11 07:14:47
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977
Well, one thing is right, one person under power can screw everything up for everyone...
What's wrong is that one person will oppress the whole nation and make it work for him...

To pick ones leaders is a bemocracy, a king is a monarchy, no opression unless the person/people in power are morons...  You can still pick your leaders yet be restricted as to thought, depends who is in power....

EVERYTHING can be altered by 1 person, just has to have enough prestiege for people to listen...
2005-12-11 09:54:58
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
Yes, one can pick ones leaders while still being oppressed but one is always oppressed when one cannot pick one's leaders. Monarchies are tantamount to oppression because they deny people with one of the most basic human rights.
2005-12-11 10:31:19
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054

Krappyappy wrote:


in response to the various comments above:

first of all, i advocate an intelligent dictatorship. i didn't say anything about communism. it's funny how people can't keep two completely unrelated things straight in their heads, but most westerners have an understandably skewed view of communism.

Lol Yea I geuss




people in the USA act like their precious freedoms are so sacred. what can you really get away with? 's

Do you recall a man Saying " Fuck You " Right to the Vice Presidents face?

Where else can you protest so effectively.
2005-12-11 11:39:06
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

kilroy0097 wrote:

I am in favor of a new party. The Moderate Party. I believe the more Middle of the Republican and Democrat Parties should leave and form their own party called the Moderate Party. This immediately leaves the most Right and Left Wing supporters on their own and brings in line the more centraly minded representatives together. This also gains the majority of support from the citizens of this nation who are vastly in the middle and not the Right or Left. They only follow the Rep or Dem because they have no other option other than a long shot no chance Independent who is often too Ultra Liberal or Conservative or wacko to be a viable candidate for the majority.
I would love to see this happen as well.  I was actually talking with a friend about this after the last election; he thought it would come to pass.  Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen.  The moderates will just tow the party line...
2005-12-11 11:50:54
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
So I guess y'all have never heard of the Libertarians? www.lp.org
2005-12-11 11:53:00
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

To think that you could ever find one person that everyone could agree on is ridiculous and to think that any individual would not be corrupted with absolute power shows a complete lack of understanding of the human psyche.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

Ejumakate yourself.

heh, don't come to me talking about the human psyche, you'd be surprised what i know. you don't need to condescend to me like i'm some schoolboy who's yet to read his share of textbooks.

yes, we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely. fine, whatever.

but that's not what we're discussing here. we're talking about the merits of the SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. you have to consider the system independently of the people running it. you think corruption is limited to dictatorships? there is plenty of corruption in western 'democratic' states. people are fallible, they're not a part of this discussion.

i'm talking about the IDEAL dictatorship. in philosophy, as in physics or chemistry, ideal conditions are rarely achievable. that doesn't change its properties or characteristics. the IDEAL dictatorship is absolute power given to an absolutely competent ruler. such a system is uncomparably more efficient and effective than a slow moving representative government. the ruler makes the right choice and no one can second guess him. if you think that any other form of government can do a better job than that, you're deluding yourself. an IDEAL system is the best, period, and it's not possible to be better than it by definition.

now let's consider the IDEAL democracy. that would be a system where every single voter was so competent and educated that they would always vote for the best course of action to take. not only that, but they would all agree with each other about how to vote, because while there can be several VIABLE options in any scenario, only ONE can be the best. you can see that you end up with exactly the same course of action as the IDEAL dictatorship. but, while the ideal democratic process is taking its pointless vote where everyone will vote the same way, the ideal dictatorship has already put into action those same plans. so you see, as long as we're discussing the forms of government in and of themselves, dictatorship is infinitely superior to democracy, mostly because democracy is an utter waste of time under ideal conditions.


FeloniusMonk wrote:

Sorry but you don't seem to understand what a dictatorship is. A king is a form of oppression because the ability to chose one's leaders is inherent to freedom. A dictatorship goes against those freedoms by putting power in the hands of one individual.

a rookie debater will often make 'the mistake of absolutes.' that's where they believe so firmly in their point of view that they forget to justify it. you say 'a dictatorship is bad because it goes against freedom.' well, why shouldn't it, if it makes for more effective government? you're assuming that freedom is some kind of absolutely divine value that can't ever be violated. but i don't prescribe to your system of values, and therefore i'm not bound to uphold freedom at all costs.

it's a mistake to think that giving people freedom is always a good thing. people have the freedom to choose a bad leader. i'm concerned with the well-being of the state. again, in the ideal dictatorship, the leader is the most competent person available for the job. the freedom to choose one's own leaders would be completely irrelevant, because anyone you chose other than the current dictator would be LESS QUALIFIED for the job. why would you pick him? as for putting power in the hands of the individual, that's almost a given. why do you think the drafters of the american constitution had to include a single-person executive? they knew that representative government is painfully slow and that when it came down to making fast important decisions, nothing beats power in the hands of one individual.
2005-12-11 13:12:00
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
you have to consider the system independently of the people running it
That's the most ridiculous part of your argument. You can't consider a system of government independant of the people running it or the people under its' rule because without the people, government doesn't exist. It's not like the laws of chemistry and physics which would still exist without humans. Thinking about a "hypothetical" situation in which you can ignore human nature in setting up a government makes as much sense as designing an airplane while ignoring the law of gravity.
2005-12-11 14:23:06
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

FeloniousMonk wrote:

you have to consider the system independently of the people running it
That's the most ridiculous part of your argument. You can't consider a system of government independant of the people running it or the people under its' rule because without the people, government doesn't exist. It's not like the laws of chemistry and physics which would still exist without humans. Thinking about a "hypothetical" situation in which you can ignore human nature in setting up a government makes as much sense as designing an airplane while ignoring the law of gravity.
Maybe he means a dictatorship with a robot as the leader.
2005-12-11 14:24:55
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

FeloniousMonk wrote:

So I guess y'all have never heard of the Libertarians? www.lp.org
As I said in an earlier post, I relate more with Libertarians than with Republicans or Democrats.  Unfortunately, the Libertarian party has no clout in Washington.  In order to become an effective third party, they need to control a decent number of seats in Congress.
2005-12-11 15:15:59
dshak
Member
+4|7030
I just have to wiegh in... I can think of many systems, notably a parliamentary system, which is better than a two part system. the stupid two party system is why the US gets George Bush vs John Kerry. ack.
2005-12-11 15:36:41
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

atlvolunteer wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

So I guess y'all have never heard of the Libertarians? www.lp.org
As I said in an earlier post, I relate more with Libertarians than with Republicans or Democrats.  Unfortunately, the Libertarian party has no clout in Washington.  In order to become an effective third party, they need to control a decent number of seats in Congress.
Agreed.
2005-12-11 17:24:14
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

you have to consider the system independently of the people running it
That's the most ridiculous part of your argument. You can't consider a system of government independant of the people running it or the people under its' rule because without the people, government doesn't exist. It's not like the laws of chemistry and physics which would still exist without humans. Thinking about a "hypothetical" situation in which you can ignore human nature in setting up a government makes as much sense as designing an airplane while ignoring the law of gravity.

hypotheticals are fun. more fun than the dreary truth. but since you're not willing to play ball, there can't be any continued discussion.
2005-12-11 17:59:47
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:


hypotheticals are fun. more fun than the dreary truth. but since you're not willing to play ball, there can't be any continued discussion.
Hypotheticals that have no basis in reality are fun? Okie dokie
2005-12-11 18:07:03
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977
It allows people to use their imagination, very much so if their view of the world is disturbed...
2005-12-11 18:18:34
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:


hypotheticals are fun. more fun than the dreary truth. but since you're not willing to play ball, there can't be any continued discussion.
Hypotheticals that have no basis in reality are fun? Okie dokie
well, i say my hypotheticals DO have a basis in reality. we can toss baseless statements back and forth all day.
2005-12-11 18:32:49
zacattack15
Member
+0|7042
communism is a great form of government. it is a great idea and would have done well if it werent for corruption.
2005-12-11 18:36:49
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977

zacattack15 wrote:

communism is a great form of government. it is a great idea and would have done well if it werent for corruption.
Well, all form of gov't have corruption....unless the people running the country are absolutely perfect and are psycioligcly (sp) sound:  Adolf Hitler- He was, say, the Ned Flanders of political leaders, except for one thing, he was deeply involved with nazism...
2005-12-11 19:21:16
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:


hypotheticals are fun. more fun than the dreary truth. but since you're not willing to play ball, there can't be any continued discussion.
Hypotheticals that have no basis in reality are fun? Okie dokie
well, i say my hypotheticals DO have a basis in reality. we can toss baseless statements back and forth all day.
Dude, you're talking about discussing governments but ignoring the most important part about them: the people that make them up and ruled by them. Again, it's like talking about designing a new type of airplane but ignoring the law of gravity.
2005-12-11 19:22:56
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

zacattack15 wrote:

communism is a great form of government. it is a great idea and would have done well if it werent for corruption.
Why do you think it's a great form of government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism in case anyone wants to brush up
2005-12-11 22:43:14
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7061|Bryan/College Station, TX

atlvolunteer wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

So I guess y'all have never heard of the Libertarians? www.lp.org
As I said in an earlier post, I relate more with Libertarians than with Republicans or Democrats.  Unfortunately, the Libertarian party has no clout in Washington.  In order to become an effective third party, they need to control a decent number of seats in Congress.
Hence why I support the Centrist movement i.e. "The Moderate Party" as I have labeled them. They make up the Centrist minded GOP and also backing from more Centrist minded Democrats as well. These politicians already sit in seats within Congress and so if such a movement actually takes off then you will see a large portion of both the Senate and the House swing to a new 3rd party much to the pains of both incumbant parties.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-12-11 22:50:05
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7061|Bryan/College Station, TX

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:


Hypotheticals that have no basis in reality are fun? Okie dokie
well, i say my hypotheticals DO have a basis in reality. we can toss baseless statements back and forth all day.
Dude, you're talking about discussing governments but ignoring the most important part about them: the people that make them up and ruled by them. Again, it's like talking about designing a new type of airplane but ignoring the law of gravity.
I have to agree with FeloniousMonk on this one Krappyappy. An arguement or debate based upon hypotheticals is all well and good but doesn't bring all issues into focus. An Utopian society can only exist in a fictitious world which is by all rights hypothetical. So in your arguement, in a completely Utopian society of Dictatorship you are correct that they would look after their people with their safety and well being in mind. The same can be said about a Monarchy, or a Republic, or a Democracy. Any form of government whose leaders look after the well being of their people and act in their best interests is a good government. So arguing against that hypothetical is useless and hence is no longer a discussion. However when you bring in real life and discuss in the terms of reality then the discussion can continue and real thought and forward thinking can emerge.

The goal of meaningful discussion outside the realms of philosophy is to find a solution to problems. To discover the truth that lays beneath and perhaps understand it more. So lets forgo the fiction of hypothetical discussions and lets instead get into the meat of it taking non-fiction reality into account.

Cheers.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-12-12 02:16:21
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037
i still prefer philosophical discussions.

but fine, let's start over, in this real world that you all can't disconnect yourselves from. no one has actually responded to any of my other points anyway, mostly clinging to the hypotheticalness of my argument rather than soundness of my logic.

dictatorships are still the most efficient form of government. throughout the vast majority of human civilisation we have been ruled by dictators. genghis khan is the single most genetically prolific man to have ever lived, and the mongols forged the greatest empire the world has ever seen, unsurpassed to this day.

all done under dictatorship.

there are mostly two arguments against dictatorship.

1. it's prone to corruption. well, if we counted up all the dictators to ever have ruled, and recorded the corrupt ones against the good rulers, we'd probably find a sizeable sample of each. people [especially westerners] tend to demonise dictatorship, but a dictator can be good or bad. you can't deny that there have been plenty of worthy, strong dictators who have made their countries into strong, stable states. in fact, it's pretty hard to get through a history book without having to study these people, and they're usually regarded as the greats in history.

2. it takes away freedom. i've said this before, so what? true freedom is something akin to nietszche's amoral uberman, which is impossible in this real world discussion we're talking about. all we can hope to have is a crippled, half-freedom. and really the only freedom of issue here is freedom to choose one's own government. remember the american civil war? the south decided to choose a different government. look where it got them. besides which, dictators can be voted into power. in that case, there's no problem with this freedom of government, because the people have given their consent to be ruled by a dictator.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-12 02:42:13)

2005-12-12 07:14:12
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

2. it takes away freedom. i've said this before, so what?
So it disappoints me that people have fought and died for your freedom to come onto an internet forum and post about how much you want to live under a dictatorship. If you want to be a slave, go for it. If you want to live in a society where someone else decides how your life is supposed to go, by all means that's your choice. But damned if I'm ever going to give up my liberty.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard