Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2005-12-12 14:44:19
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977

FeloniousMonk wrote:

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.
My god, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN A DICTATORSHIP AND SLAVERY, OR A DEMOCRACY AND "FREEDOM"!!!

The choice of government is of the country, the freedoms are decided by the people of the government...
2005-12-12 15:15:16
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Jeckelcopy wrote:

My god, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN A DICTATORSHIP AND SLAVERY, OR A DEMOCRACY AND "FREEDOM"!!!

The choice of government is of the country, the freedoms are decided by the people of the government...
I disagree. One of the most basic tenants of the ideas of freedom and liberty is the ability to chose one's leaders. A dictatorship is the antithesis of that.
2005-12-12 16:13:05
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I disagree. One of the most basic tenants of the ideas of freedom and liberty is the ability to chose one's leaders. A dictatorship is the antithesis of that.

Krappyappy wrote:

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.
i don't even know why i bother writing stuff, people tend to ignore it anyway.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-12 16:13:55)

2005-12-12 17:35:24
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
Rarely are they ever voted into power and rarely are they willing to relinquish it. A dictator is no better than a monarch. Both are oppressive forms of leadership and both rely on the people giving up their freedoms to a single person.
2005-12-12 18:09:08
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037
how rare something is isn't a valid argument for how good it is. as for giving up freedom, that's inherent to civilisation. the whole point of any kind of government is to exchange freedom for security. no matter what kind of government it is, it always involves giving up freedom.
2005-12-12 18:34:11
Jeckelcopy
Ach du Sheisse!!!!
+2|6977

Krappyappy wrote:

how rare something is isn't a valid argument for how good it is. as for giving up freedom, that's inherent to civilisation. the whole point of any kind of government is to exchange freedom for security. no matter what kind of government it is, it always involves giving up freedom.
An Ex, the Partiot act, people gave up their right for privacy to be secure against terrorists to America...
2005-12-12 20:19:38
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

how rare something is isn't a valid argument for how good it is. as for giving up freedom, that's inherent to civilisation. the whole point of any kind of government is to exchange freedom for security. no matter what kind of government it is, it always involves giving up freedom.
Untrue because one cannot have true liberty without accepting the liberty of others. Civilization does not preclude freedom of any kind, it merely enforces the need for responsibilities that go hand in hand with rights.

Now you're right, something rarity isn't a measure of it's quality. But you should really read up on exactly what a dictatorship is before you go off touting it. You don't seem to understand that the whole idea behind a single person running a government is for the sole purpose of putting the people under totalitarian control.



Jeckelcopy wrote:

An Ex, the Partiot act, people gave up their right for privacy to be secure against terrorists to America...
People didn't give it up, politicians took it away. I didn't vote on the Patriot Act, did you? It was signed into law before most people in the country even knew it was being written. Besides, it's illusion of safety. My safety is ensured by the firearms I keep, not by the FBI's ability to wiretap people without prompt notification of probable cause.

Ben Franklin mentioned something about giving up liberty to obtain safety...those who would do so deserve neither.
2005-12-13 01:13:46
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Civilization does not preclude freedom of any kind, it merely enforces the need for responsibilities that go hand in hand with rights.
civilisation is by definition the exchange of ideal, chaotic liberty for rules and regulations that enhance security. i give up my freedom to take anything i want from you, if you agree to do the same. we both lose a bit of freedom and gain a bit of security.

the social contract: In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights in return for giving up certain freedoms they would have in a state of nature.

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

FeloniousMonk wrote:

You don't seem to understand that the whole idea behind a single person running a government is for the sole purpose of putting the people under totalitarian control.
i understand that perfectly. i'm saying that totalitarian control can be a good thing. it's not always a good thing, but nothing is, right?

FeloniousMonk wrote:

People didn't give it up, politicians took it away. I didn't vote on the Patriot Act, did you? It was signed into law before most people in the country even knew it was being written.
this is a prime example of the illusion of power that democracy perpetuates. yes, people object to the PATRIOT act. they bitch and moan and protest, but has all the dissent actually done anything? not at all. you see, even with the right to free speech and political dissent, the rulers can get away with doing what they want. a lot of us protest the war in iraq, but does it get the troops home? that's why i keep saying a dictatorship does not equal oppression. a dictator can allow people these freedoms and still do what he likes. you have to stop thinking of dictatorship in terms of what the media tells you it is, and think of what it can possibly be.
2005-12-13 07:23:39
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

i give up my freedom to take anything i want from you
You never had that freedom to begin with. The concept of freedom and liberty requires that you respect the freedom and liberty of others. Believing that you're the only one that has those freedoms goes against the idealogy.
i understand that perfectly. i'm saying that totalitarian control can be a good thing
And I simply disagree. Totalitarian control is never a good thing and nor can it ever be.

a lot of us protest the war in iraq, but does it get the troops home?
No because a lot of us disagree with the rest of you. In reality people do have the power to make all the changes they want, they just haven't taken the steps to do so. People bitch and moan and complain but have you called your senators and representative to express your displeasure with the Patriot Act and the war? Have you participated in or led a civil protest?

Our people do have the ability to change anything they want in the government; it's part of the document that frames the very foundations of it. The problem isn't the politicians, it's the the fact that the people are too lazy to actually do something about it.
a dictator can allow people these freedoms and still do what he likes. you have to stop thinking of dictatorship in terms of what the media tells you it is, and think of what it can possibly be.
I love how people like to bring up "the media" as if CNN did a special on the definition of dictators or something.

http://www.google.com/search?q=dictator … S:official

Do a little research, learn what dictatorships are truly about. Learn what the whole idea behind them is and learn when and why they are used.

Do you really believe that it's possible to find a single individual to rule people? Do you really believe it can ever be a good idea? Like I said before, believing that any one man can ever rule people with everyone's good intentions in mind shows a lack of understanding of human nature and to think that anyone in that position will not be corrupted by power shows the same.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-12-13 07:29:56)

2005-12-13 07:40:35
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

Krappyappy wrote:

[color=aqua] this is a prime example of the illusion of power that democracy perpetuates. yes, people object to the PATRIOT act. they bitch and moan and protest, but has all the dissent actually done anything? not at all. you see, even with the right to free speech and political dissent, the rulers can get away with doing what they want. a lot of us protest the war in iraq, but does it get the troops home?
Actually, you can do something about it.  If the politicians representing you do something you don't like, you can try to prevent them from being reelected by voting for their opponents and campaigning against them.
2005-12-13 08:01:53
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037
And I simply disagree. Totalitarian control is never a good thing and nor can it ever be.
i've already given examples of how totalitarianism can be a good thing [e.g. genghis khan]. you never responded to that point.

No because a lot of us disagree with the rest of you. In reality people do have the power to make all the changes they want, they just haven't taken the steps to do so. People bitch and moan and complain but have you called your senators and representative to express your displeasure with the Patriot Act and the war? Have you participated in or led a civil protest?
no, i haven't, but other people have. i can see from their actions that it has not done anything concrete.

Do you really believe that it's possible to find a single individual to rule people? Do you really believe it can ever be a good idea? Like I said before, believing that any one man can ever rule people with everyone's good intentions in mind shows a lack of understanding of human nature and to think that anyone in that position will not be corrupted by power shows the same.
again, not only do i believe it, history books are full of examples of monarchs, emporers, and other dictators who have done a good job of ruling. the evidence is plain and right in front of you.

also, you didn't respond to my point on the social contract. rousseau's state of nature is one where everyone has all freedoms. those without civilisation, such as animals and pre-civilisation humans, have all possible freedom with no constraints. they do not have the need to 'respect other's freedoms' as a prerequisite to their own. the respect for other's freedoms is a result of the social contract and inevitably involves the curtailing of freedom to some degree.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-13 08:04:35)

2005-12-13 08:56:32
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

i've already given examples of how totalitarianism can be a good thing [e.g. genghis khan]. you never responded to that point.
khan was a brutal murderer, and aside from his mass rapings of women in lands he conquered to spread his genetics, I don't see what good he ever did for society or his people


no, i haven't, but other people have. i can see from their actions that it has not done anything concrete.
You haven't but other people have. How many people? How many people do what you do and say "Eh, I don't need to call my congressmen, other people are doing it for me. I don't need to participate in my government to make it work, it's supposed to simply go my way because I want it to."?



again, not only do i believe it, history books are full of examples of monarchs, emporers, and other dictators who have done a good job of ruling. the evidence is plain and right in front of you.
Give me examples. Monarchs rule through lies, emperors rule through fear, and dictators rule through brute force. None have done good jobs of ruling unless they took steps to decrease their own power and give it back to the people in the form of representative governments.

also, you didn't respond to my point on the social contract. rousseau's state of nature is one where everyone has all freedoms. those without civilisation, such as animals and pre-civilisation humans, have all possible freedom with no constraints. they do not have the need to 'respect other's freedoms' as a prerequisite to their own. the respect for other's freedoms is a result of the social contract and inevitably involves the curtailing of freedom to some degree.
There is a definitive difference between liberty and anarchy. What you're talking about is anarchy, where no one has to respect the rights of others. Freedom and liberty are concepts that require the recognition of the same to all human beings.

Yes, the respect of others freedoms requires a social contract but it doesn't necessarily involve giving up freedoms. I don't have the "freedom" to steal from you or kill you, I never did. That social contract gives me a legal reason not to do so but the concepts of freedom being respected universally across all human beings is what prevents me from even considering it.
2005-12-13 14:31:40
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

khan was a brutal murderer, and aside from his mass rapings of women in lands he conquered to spread his genetics, I don't see what good he ever did for society or his people
he made his country strong, and therefore gave his people security and increased their standard of living. yes, he was a brutal murderer. surely you're not so naive as to think that effective governing requires anything less? the USA was built on a foundation of racism, blood, and conquest, and so was any other historically significant country. whether the ruler is a bloodthirsty monster or strong-willed conquerer is purely an issue of point of view.

FeloniusMonk wrote:

How many people do what you do and say "Eh, I don't need to call my congressmen, other people are doing it for me. I don't need to participate in my government to make it work, it's supposed to simply go my way because I want it to."?
that's precisely the opposite of what i think. i believe that no matter how much i want it to, government will not go my way. i've already been over the illusion of democracy as a method to placate the citizenry into thinking they can control what goes on.

FeloniusMonk wrote:

Give me examples. Monarchs rule through lies, emperors rule through fear, and dictators rule through brute force. None have done good jobs of ruling unless they took steps to decrease their own power and give it back to the people in the form of representative governments.
peter the great hogged the power like the fat kid hogs the cheese tray at a party. he also modernised the russian navy and began the transformation of russia from economic backwardness into a player in international politics. emperor qin shi huang of china brutalised his neighboring clans and united the land under one government, enabling a strong chinese dynasty to emerge for the next 300 years. catherine the great, julius caesar, and on and on. i understand you're attached to your democracy, having had that force-fed into your brain your entire life. but to think that representative government is the only viable choice is just not being realistic.

FeloniusMonk wrote:

There is a definitive difference between liberty and anarchy. What you're talking about is anarchy, where no one has to respect the rights of others. Freedom and liberty are concepts that require the recognition of the same to all human beings. Yes, the respect of others freedoms requires a social contract but it doesn't necessarily involve giving up freedoms. I don't have the "freedom" to steal from you or kill you, I never did. That social contract gives me a legal reason not to do so but the concepts of freedom being respected universally across all human beings is what prevents me from even considering it.
i disagree completely with your definition of freedom. freedom is the ability to do whatever i want, whenever i want, however i want. there is no proviso in the concept of freedom. the limitations only arise because of our social nature and our need to cooperate. even within society, i have the freedom to kill you if i really want to. if i recognise the consequences and accept them, then i can do it. there's no invisible rope holding me back. once again, as stated in my previous posts, the social contract BY DEFINITION involves the exchange of freedom for guaranteed rights. we can look to nature for illustration. animals live like we did before we came up with civilisation. any animal can kill any other animal for food, or steal their dinner from them, or snatch their young away, or whatever else. that is perfect freedom. we don't have perfect freedom because we promised each other, if you don't mess with me, i don't mess with you.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-13 14:35:03)

2005-12-13 15:30:43
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
I still disagree with all your points and I know I won't change your mind but you do have to remember that Rousseau's social contract is not the only way to look at the world. He was but one of many philosophers.
2005-12-13 15:36:41
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
oh and

i believe that no matter how much i want it to, government will not go my way.
It's that sort of thinking that prevents representative democracies from working to their full potential. The pure and simple fact is that America, more than any other nation, has the ability to protect itself from falling under tyrannical rule. If the politicians one day decide to stop letting us vote there are 80 million Americans like me that own firearms. Our second ammendment was written for that very reason.

With all due respect I find it extremely sad and disappointing to hear someone subject themselves to the whim of a government. It's as if you completely ignore the simple fact that governments are comprised of human beings and are given power only by the will of the people.

Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2005-12-13 15:37:31)

2005-12-13 20:51:17
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7037

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I still disagree with all your points and I know I won't change your mind but you do have to remember that Rousseau's social contract is not the only way to look at the world. He was but one of many philosophers.
similarly, you should remember that representative government is not the end-all of political systems. it has its benefits and flaws like any other type of government. i bring up rousseau because he was a vocal proponent of natural rights and liberty. yet he recognised the price we pay for rights being guaranteed - restrictions on freedom.

don't be sad or disappointed, your pity and scorn are misplaced. i'm just not a mindless believer of democracy. it's a natural tendency of people to think that their system is the pinnacle of human achievement, that they have found the definitive answer to the problem. i like to remind them that this is simply wishful thinking.

Last edited by Krappyappy (2005-12-13 21:10:00)

2005-12-13 21:28:27
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Krappyappy wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

I still disagree with all your points and I know I won't change your mind but you do have to remember that Rousseau's social contract is not the only way to look at the world. He was but one of many philosophers.
similarly, you should remember that representative government is not the end-all of political systems. it has its benefits and flaws like any other type of government. i bring up rousseau because he was a vocal proponent of natural rights and liberty. yet he recognised the price we pay for rights being guaranteed - restrictions on freedom.

don't be sad or disappointed, your pity and scorn are misplaced. i'm just not a mindless believer of democracy. it's a natural tendency of people to think that their system is the pinnacle of human achievement, that they have found the definitive answer to the problem. i like to remind them that this is simply wishful thinking.

I never claimed that democracy is the pinnacle of human achievement, only that I find it to be the form of government that suits my ideals the best. There is no greater form for someone with my goals and views, for someone that values personal liberty above all else.
2005-12-13 21:32:47
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

oberst_enzian wrote:

I understand what communism is, because I've lived under it. And you're wrong, but not on the grounds that you think:

1) there is no such thing as human nature
2) communism, if ever realised like Marx envisioned, would be the only kind of society wherein anything like true freedom could ever be achieved.
1. Debatable. Some say there is, some say there isn't. I can't fathom the idea of humans not having the same natural instincts that all animals on the planet have because we are and always will be animals.
2. I disagree. Communism does not promote freedom in any form whatsoever. The very ideals behind what Marx envisoned is pure and utter control by the state.

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" That right there is a perfect example of it. In a free society I would not have my hard work go toward supporting someone who can't work as hard but is deemed to be more in need. That is exactly how Marx envisioned communism. It doesn't really work that way because those without need but with power end up taking from those with need and without power as has happened in every single communist nation to ever exist.
2005-12-14 07:38:01
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
how is there no state in the final form of communism?
2005-12-14 14:42:32
Nehil
Member
+3|6949|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)
There won't be any need for it, people would be free and the state/government would be gone.
2005-12-14 19:13:46
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Nehil wrote:

There won't be any need for it, people would be free and the state/government would be gone.
So who builds the roads? Who runs the military? Who standardizes the currency? Who enforces the law?

The people? Just on their own they'll agree to do what's best for all of society? Again, with all due respect to you guys that line of thought shows a gross lack ignorance of human nature. To think that people will all just agree to do the right thing for each other denies the free will that is inherent with sentience. Without even the smallest government to make and enforce laws and to protect the rights of the people you have anarchy which, as I've said, will undoubtedly lead to the destruction of human civilization.

The only way communism has been accepted by people in history was by force and intimidation. People were forced to accept it or they were killed; that is yet another example of how communism strips people of their freedom. It removes the choice of individual property and one of the most basic rights that were are born with is the fact that we each own our own bodies. Communism can only work in theory because the very ideas behind it are contrary to the most basic desires of human beings. It is a cruel and oppressive form of government that can only be implemented by murdering those who oppose it and would eventually cause the collapse of our society.
2005-12-14 20:11:50
Jodah3
Member
+1|6956
If you want to be idealistic, the best form of government is one that is run by a single person, call it a dictatorship if you will.  If only one person is in charge, then decisions are actually made rather than the constant fighting and bickering that you find amongst a Democracy.

This is the reason that most militaries are hierarchies headed by a single person.  If the military was a committee, then nothing would ever be done decisively. 

Of course, in walks human nature + greed.  The ideal government would require that single leader to completely selfless, completely fair, and completely committed to leading his country in the best way possible.  This, of course, will never happen, and it is the reason that all dictatorships are corrupt and abusing.

Democracies were created because of human nature, and at the moment, they are the best way to protect the general public against the abuse of power, but at the same time, opposing sides in a democracy usually waste all the time and resources fighting amongst themselves rather than getting anything done.

So, realistically, as bad as it is, the best form of government is currently some form of democracy, but the in the ideal world, I would vote for my description above.
2005-12-14 21:09:30
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953

Jodah3 wrote:

If only one person is in charge, then decisions are actually made rather than the constant fighting and bickering that you find amongst a Democracy.
If only one person is in charge then every decision is made with that person's best interest in mind. Imagine is Bush was allowed to run the US all by himself, make all the decisions without a single ovesight.

Think about that for a minute.


This is the reason that most militaries are hierarchies headed by a single person.  If the military was a committee, then nothing would ever be done decisively.
Even militaries are run by groups of people. In the US the President serves as the commander in chief but the real top of the chain is the Secretaries and the Joint Chiefs. Everything is handled by committees, even in the military.
The ideal government would require that single leader to completely selfless, completely fair, and completely committed to leading his country in the best way possible.
It would require more than that, it would require that everyone in the nation agree as to what that "best way possible" actually is. The problem with dictatorships isn't so much that the one person would be in charge but the citizens as a whole.
2005-12-14 21:27:01
Jodah3
Member
+1|6956
You missed the context of my post FeloniousMonk.

I said that in the complete idealistic situation, having one person rule would be the best.  This means that the person ruling would have no bias, or personal interest.  It's also assuming that he/she sees all angles of a situation and does not overlook anything.  It would be the perfect human being.  This is, of course, impossible.  It's purely theoretical, not realistic.

I was also simplifying the military metaphore, my fault.  The concept I was getting at, was that in the general military (general concepts here, no specific military in mind) there is an officer who sees the overall plan, and grunt soldiers who do not.  The officer is able to make decisions for the best of the squad without trying to debate the course of action with his units.  He orders, they follow, its efficient.

The comparison that I was getting at, is imagine if this generic military is a democracy.  When the officer gives an order, the grunts then vote on whether they wish to follow the order or not.  Then one guy filibusters the order, and the remaining troops are 1 vote short of breaking the filibuster, and you see where I'm getting at.

At the purely theoretical, conceptual level, rule by a single person is more effective and efficient than a democracy ever will be.  Notice that rule by a single person existed long before a democracy ever existed.  Democracies formed because human nature corrupted the "idealistic situation".  The dictators were not perfect, they had human desires, human greed.

Democracies formed to protect the general populace from the human nature of a dictator.  And it works well at it.  But a democracy is NOT the perfect government, it is very ineffective and inefficient.  The perfect government is what I described above.

I hope this makes more sense.
2005-12-14 21:48:25
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6953
Good point.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard