Post #190,260
1/14/05 10:11:33 PM
1/14/05 10:11:56 PM
|
I think it's a chasm. Almost insuperable.
You don't recognize a right to self-rule. Elitism is not the answer. It is a corruption, the poison that kills societies, and breeds resentment and violence. It is indeed a human failing - one that spans ideologies, philosophies and religions. It must be resisted, not encouraged.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Jan. 14, 2005, 10:11:56 PM EST
|
Post #190,261
1/14/05 10:28:05 PM
|
Okay, let's simplify.
In Jesusland, we've got N groups. Group 1 to Group N-1 wants everyone to be treated equally. Wants freedom of speech, thought, expression. Group 1 to Group N-1 believes in civil liberties, the right to assemble, the freedom to believe in whichever religion they chose (or none at all), the right to petition, 1 man 1 vote and that science and medical research should be unencumbered by any religious doctrine. Group N believes in none of those principles. Moreover, Group N believes that unless you are a member of Group N, you are a heathen whom God hates and will one day destroy.
Now, the pickle. Jesusland has enough nukes to kill everyone in Jesusland and all the rest of the lands on the planet and Group N comprises 50.5% of the voting populace.
Does democracy in Jesusland make sense? Does it serve humanity well? Does it serve idealized American democracy well, or anything else for that matter?
I can't help but think that you don't like the question because you don't like the obvious answer.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,265
1/14/05 10:42:52 PM
1/14/05 10:52:24 PM
|
Because your 'obvious answer' is wrong.
Think it through.
What happens when a majority of a group is treated as second-class citizens. What eventually happens to the minority that is treating them that way? What happens when that minority starts treating them with contempt (as has invariably happened throughout history)?
Your way is the way that ends in tyranny and opression. Bloodshed and death. 6000 years of history illustrates this. The republican democracy must devolve to the form of government you ADVOCATE before this happens. Or at least that's the way it's worked through history.
You will not learn, will you. You want to repeat. What was it you said? "Only atheists should be allowed to hold government positions"? Only your clique should rule? Oh - for the good of all. Nobody's heard THAT old saw before, have they?
You are horribly, enthusiastically and virulently wrong.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Jan. 14, 2005, 10:52:24 PM EST
|
Post #190,383
1/16/05 2:26:14 PM
|
FWIW, I am not an aetheist.
So, you're little "only like you" thing holds as much water as the rest of your argument.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,392
1/16/05 3:05:42 PM
|
ROFL
My argument stands. It doesn't matter if you are an atheist or not; you are still advocating that classes be legislated into society, based on 'correct' thoughts.
And if you can't see what's wrong with that logically, morally, and historically, there is no use continuing this discussion - you are squeezing your eyes shut as tightly as any neocon.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,268
1/14/05 10:56:39 PM
|
Sounds to me like you've got 2 groups.
Group N and Not Group N. Real life isn't like that. Instead, people form different alliances (people attending different churches or not, neighbors supporting or opposing a road through the neighborhood, people at work being in a union or not, people voting for A or B, people boycotting store C or D) depending on the circumstances. People supporting one issue may oppose another. Similarly, people in Jesusland aren't homogeneous either (as some here have tried to point out). Does democracy in Jesusland make sense? Does it serve humanity well? Does it serve idealized American democracy well, or anything else for that matter?A pure democracy necessarily results in tyranny of the majority. That's one of the reasons why we're not a democracy. We're a federal republic. [link|http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm|Federalist 51]: [...]
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS. If Jesusland were a federal republic and 50.5% believed as you suggest, what would that mean? I dunno. How would it translate into concrete political actions and results? For example, I don't think the US has ever had a proposition on the ballot on whether we should go to war or not. How would you phrase this plebiscite? How would it be binding? Could you flesh this part out a little more? Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #190,384
1/16/05 2:28:07 PM
|
I don't need to flesh it out further.
The George W. Bush administration is doing that irl, unfortunately.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,263
1/14/05 10:28:45 PM
|
"The tyranny of the majority" must be fought at all costs.
In a representative democracy, if you can control the majority (and get them to vote for, and elect, your candidates) then you can control everyone (because your candidates, once "democratically elected", will pass whatever laws are needed for this, as was done by Hitler's agents in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and seems to be happening today in the U.S.A.). [link|http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm|Link]. And from the above link, the words of English philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in the Introduction to On Liberty about the tyranny of the majority: Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant \ufffd society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it \ufffd its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism. Alex
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
|
Post #190,266
1/14/05 10:49:42 PM
|
And it is SO much worse than the ordinary kind, right?
That is why we don't HAVE a plain democracy. There is danger, but it is mitigated.
In an ordinary tyranny, there is no mitigation. The 'nukes of jesusland' tha mmoffit describes aren't just possible in extreme conditions, but at any time.
Sorry - the tyranny of the few is far more 'dangerous' than the tyranny of democracy.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,352
1/16/05 6:37:05 AM
|
Well, we could start with having a similar # voting machines
per capita in the Out-of-Power districts as in the Popular-spread areas; paper trails - and no road blocks for the little brown people as are perpetually Out-of-Power. Then we could see if Murica '04 rises to the level of 'democracy', let alone the refinement of 'Republic' (given the all-Too-successful DeLay/Gerrymandering of late .. ) That is why we don't HAVE a plain democracy. There is danger, but it is mitigated. I still recall vividly enough, the thugs imported by Baker [seems to have been traced ~there, last I heard] to FL in Shrub's extremis; beating on the walls, spreading chaos.. just like the Reichstag fire, only no half-wit 'Communist' to take the fall in FL: only Repo Anarchists. So I think you're speaking more theoretically, mythically? (and hopefully) than daily events merit. Ours is always claimed to be a democracy in the civics classes (do they still have those in HS?) For certain $Classes. You tell me what kind of -ocracy you get when each year the concentration of communications *about the operation of that democracy* becomes more dense / less diverse and the reporting duty becomes manifestly briefer and less competent -- as the funding for Public Service obligation - to get those lucrative frequencies, Free, in the first place - is further reduced. (I doubt that we can pass a law to Save Our Asses from disinformation, either (while we're averring the impossibility of 'legal' protection from a plurality of theocrats in search of Brownie Points with each one's personal version of The Big Guy.)) Theoretically... we be Just Fine. Hey, they said that when I was a tyke, too. (Got As in Civics too - for accurately regurgitating all that, just as if it were true, then.) moi
|
Post #190,358
1/16/05 8:44:15 AM
|
Not fine; in danger.
In danger of losing our protections, of failing to preserve our democracy, in short, of becoming the type of society that Mike has said he wants.
You are thinking in binary again, Ash. It isn't 'if ya aint fer us yer agin us'. If this country has elected something malignant, it's not time to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,385
1/16/05 2:33:38 PM
|
Too late? We'll see.
Keep in mind that even the neocons didn't think they had a "mandate" during term 1 of the ripping up of the Constitution. Now it's term 2, and thanks in large measure to the fundies, the neocons now believe they have a "mandate" to continue and expand their policies. And I hear you arguing, "Well, if that's what the people want, so be it."
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,391
1/16/05 3:03:01 PM
|
And you are arguing
What? That those that share your view of religion are 'more equal than others'. That those that disagree with you are less than you are, that people like YOU should be making their decisions; precisely what you SAY you find distasteful about the fundies.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,468
1/17/05 9:32:20 AM
|
Mebbe you should answer his question
Yes, that's what he's saying, OK? Now...what are you saying?
Seems to me he has you as pegged as you have him....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,470
1/17/05 9:48:11 AM
|
<sigh>
His only question was 'too late?'
We WILL see.
I do not advocate jumping the gun and 'ripping up the Constitution' before the neocons get a chance to. Denying the people their voice is ethically wrong, even if it's 'for their own good' - so is setting up a two-class system. Yes, I believe that the American people have made a grossly wrong error in this election. Yes, I believe the neocons will damage the Republic. Will I therefore drive a stake into the heart of the Republic? Do I advocate 'burning the village in order to save it' as Mike has?
The answer is 100% NO.
For instance, Mike has gone on record as saying he would deny government positions to the Nazi Party. In short, he would decide which political parties are 'valid'. I have gone on record as saying 'let the people decide'. Is this so hard to understand?
Forgive me for being against setting up an 'underclass' based on people's beliefs.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,471
1/17/05 10:04:08 AM
|
Or even...
Forgive me for being against setting up an 'underclass' based on people's beliefs. ... or even one's perception of people's beliefs.
E.g. [link|http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15546.html|2004 Exit Poll Results] from beliefnet:
21% of the "White Evangelical/Born Again" voters said they voted for Kerry.
31% of those claiming "None" as their religion said they voted for Bush.
36% who said they never attended church said they voted for Bush.
22% of those who said that abortion should be illegal in all cases said they voted for Kerry.
Etc.
How would Mike go about determining who was banned?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #190,500
1/17/05 4:43:20 PM
|
Err, look at your stuff from a different angle.
~79% of the "White Evangelical/Born Again" voters said they voted for Bush.
~69% of those claiming "None" as their religion said they voted for Kerry.
~64% who said they had attended church said they voted for Bush.
~78% of those who said that abortion should be illegal in all cases said they voted for Bush.
Maybe I'll use your stuff to decide ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,501
1/17/05 4:58:30 PM
|
A majority isn't all.
This brings us back to your 50.5% in Jesusland...
How do you decide who in Jesusland shouldn't be able to serve in office or vote or whatever? In the last election, ~20+% of the people in Jesusland voted against Bush. If we accept for the sake of argument that the 80% are a danger, how do you determine who in Jesusland should be able to vote or run for office? Do you decide to not take chances and just exclude them all, just to be sure? Do you eliminate the secret ballot in Jesusland? Do you require that people in Jesusland who attend certain churches have to wear certain symbols? Would some political questionaire be required before a person in Jesusland could register to vote or run for office?
It's a really bad position you're taking...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #190,505
1/17/05 6:11:48 PM
|
Not a bad idea...
Do you eliminate the secret ballot in Jesusland? I'll bet the vast majority of the sack-o-hair in Jesusland would go for it. That way, they'll know, "Who's for us and who's again' us!" After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear! jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,563
1/18/05 8:15:48 AM
|
How about a civics test?
Achieving the age of 18 chronologically seems to me to be an insufficient credential for contributing to the decision of whom sits atop the world's only remaining superpower (wrt militia, of course. We are rapidly becoming an "also ran" in economic power).
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,570
1/18/05 9:21:47 AM
|
Who writes the test? Who judges it?
|
Post #190,633
1/18/05 5:15:57 PM
|
moi?
|
Post #190,656
1/18/05 6:40:24 PM
|
^^^^ I'd be comfortable with that.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,657
1/18/05 6:41:16 PM
|
And when he passes on...
...or becomes too mentally feeble to continue updating it - who then?
And then who?
And then who?
And then who?
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #190,659
1/18/05 6:45:15 PM
|
Me. Then, my kids. Then, ...
we launch all the nukes and leave it to Gawd.
[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,760
1/19/05 10:26:13 AM
|
Of course you would
But it doesn't scale.
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,765
1/19/05 10:42:41 AM
|
It should ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,774
1/19/05 11:36:08 AM
|
Civics test would be counterproductive!
No worries, the random reliance on actual vote counts has already been corrected for!
And wrt economic power vs military power, I think we need to look at things a little differently... the civics-lesson approach tells us that we are the most powerful and free country in the world, and that we should continue to do good, that our best interests are to lead the world into a better era.
BUT THAT'S OLD THINKING. That's optimistic, rose-colored, weak-kneed, bleeding-heart, depending-on-others, limp-wristed pap.
You gotta think CRISIS. You gotta think stingy. You gotta think mean. You gotta think Last chance. You gotta think Nothing to lose.
We only have a few good years of dominance left, are rapidly heading towards irrelevance, and the nice-guy civics-lesson good-world-citizen approach is only going to accelerate the process of landing us into the also-ran bin, while handing a nice working productive world over to China. Once that happens, we'll have nothing to show for it and no way to get out of it *forever*.
By stirring things up the way we have been these past years (and wait -- there's more!), we may create chances for a catastrophic success somewhere, and if we still lose, at least we'll have poisoned the well so whoever takes over will have a hard time of it -- and who knows, leave ourselves a little leverage to work with.
Giovanni
Have whatever values you have. That's what America is for.
You don't need George Bush for that.
|
Post #190,883
1/19/05 8:17:44 PM
|
read the voting rights act of 1964
been there, done that and it didnt work the first time
regards,
daemon
that way too many Iraqis conceived of free society as little more than a mosh pit with grenades. ANDISHEH NOURAEE
clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #190,482
1/17/05 1:24:56 PM
|
Consider yourself forgiven
The question I have is: Once the majority of the voting populace has demonstrated that they are dumber that a sack of hair, and they figure that a Nazi would be the "correct" choice for this republic (a situation that some say has already happened, and that others like myself believe is but a single "election" away), then what? mmoffitt's solution is not palatable, I'll agree. But what is?
(Hint: There isn't enough room in Austrailia for all of us....)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #190,483
1/17/05 1:51:42 PM
|
For the individual, or the whole?
Once the majority of the voting populace has demonstrated that they are dumber that a sack of hair, and they figure that a Nazi would be the "correct" choice for this republic (a situation that some say has already happened, and that others like myself believe is but a single "election" away), then what? For the individual: if you believe that the situtation has progressed to a point of collected misdirection (ie: Germany in 1939), the best solution is to leave. (Witness several key German scientists who left.) For the group as a whole: democracy (or a republic) can and has voted individuals in who taken over (witness Chile). However, in these cases, either the country corrects itself over time (Chile) or the world corrects the country (Germany). (The key statement being "over time".) Sidenote: many conservatives thought we reached the same point with Clinton, both first and second term. (Rush's famous "Days held Hostage" and even jokes about Clinton refusing to give up office.) The US is a very strong country. It will survive Bush and the neocons. IMO, we don't have to worry about a leader who has 30-50% of the people who dislike/hate them. The leader that takes over the US will only have approx. 5% of the people who dislike/hate. them. (Maybe less)
|
Post #190,490
1/17/05 2:45:16 PM
|
Nazi's best result at the polls were 38%
They never had majority of popular vote nor of seats in parliament before Hitler was appointer the Chancelor.
[link|http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp|http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.asp]
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,491
1/17/05 2:58:47 PM
|
Cogent link. Thanks.
|
Post #190,503
1/17/05 6:05:32 PM
1/17/05 6:06:09 PM
|
Hmmm -- Sound familiar?
From the linked article: Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history \ufffd that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for \ufffdsecurity.\ufffd And that\ufffds exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis. And has happened here as well. That's why I'm not as sanguine as Simon_Jester. Here, we've already got over 50% of the sacks-of-hair wanting to sacrifice real liberty for "security", and that number is not getting smaller. (And just wait until "No Child Left StandingBehind becomes fully "effective"....) [edit: Correctly referenced previous poster] jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
Edited by jb4
Jan. 17, 2005, 06:06:09 PM EST
|
Post #190,565
1/18/05 8:19:12 AM
|
You're right, of course.
And for all the hand-wringing over my posts of late, the point as you so accurately state is moot. Liberty in a democracy cannot long last when the majority don't want it to. And I find myself ever refining my question. Now it is akin to, "Must our democracy be curtailed in the interest of the continuation of liberty?"
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,567
1/18/05 8:53:43 AM
|
A much more civilized way of saying
should we burn the village in order to save it... *chuckle*
You assume that liberty and democracy are not related, though. How can one be free, if there is no self-determination? How can one have self-determination, if one is part of a class denied representation in government?
What you advocate, IMO, is a hierarchy of privelege, determined by 'right thinking'. By political correctness.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,653
1/18/05 6:29:40 PM
|
Oh.. we *haven't* a 'hierarchy of privilege', then?
|
Post #190,658
1/18/05 6:43:07 PM
1/18/05 6:43:52 PM
|
Succinct. Love it.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Edited by mmoffitt
Jan. 18, 2005, 06:43:52 PM EST
|
Post #190,660
1/18/05 6:45:34 PM
|
It's the "Dogma of Otherness" all over again...
|
Post #190,681
1/18/05 8:02:06 PM
|
Not legislated.
As you two evidently want.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,752
1/19/05 9:45:55 AM
|
Sure it is
it's legislated by birth.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,761
1/19/05 10:27:07 AM
|
Care to elaborate?
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,779
1/19/05 11:49:45 AM
|
Yep
If you are born rich, you're likely to remain that way. If you're born poor, ditto.
Thems that has, gets, thems that don't, don't.
Individual success stories exist, but they are statistically irrelevant. Furthermore, the pattern of the last twenty or so years has the getting going more and more to thems that has, while the taking has been coming more and more from thems that don't.
If you don't believe me, go take a walk around a poor part of town sometime. I can see what's happened to mine over the last 25 years, and the differences are remarkable.
I understand that a GREAT way to see this in action in the US is to compare the schools in the low-rent districts to the schools in the high rent districts.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,780
1/19/05 11:55:03 AM
1/19/05 11:56:45 AM
|
How is that legislated?
Don't tell me how the legislature has failed to fix problems, tell me how a two-class system is written into law. Show me how that 2nd class of citizens have laws that explicitly limit thier rights; show me the laws that say they have fewer rights (especially re: participation in government) than the ruling class.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Jan. 19, 2005, 11:56:45 AM EST
|
Post #190,789
1/19/05 12:05:33 PM
|
You're kidding, right?
All of our laws are written to support and defend the inequitable distribution of wealth because our laws are written by the plutocracy.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #190,791
1/19/05 12:06:48 PM
|
Don't bother...
...it's like trying to explain to a fish he's swimming in water.
(No offense meant, Imric - I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to use that one)
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #190,796
1/19/05 12:11:44 PM
|
Sure they are.
It should be EASY to cite one that legislates a second class with fewer rights than the 'elite', then, shouldn't it? (Especially one based on 'right thinking') SHOULDN'T IT?
Pretend I'm from Missouri.
SHOW ME.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,799
1/19/05 12:22:27 PM
|
No, not easy
Look imric, there are many ways to enforce class, and not all of them need be active.
Answer this: is a rich person more likely to get away with murder than a poor person? Why?
This is not something that is "legislated" in the sense of their being a statute. However, it is legislated by the law that states that Only The Rich Can Afford Good Lawyers. If you want to find out about that, take a look at some of the recent events in Tucson wrt the prosecutor's office to see this in action.
Legislated \\= By Statute
unless you're a lawyer of course... and you have to think like a lawyer to justify the position you're trying to take.
Here's another question. Is there class in the US? If it's not legislated, why does it still exist?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #190,800
1/19/05 12:33:39 PM
|
Bah.
We do NOT have a system that legislates an ELITE with more rights than the second class.
It has gotten better WRT classes based on economics since our founding.
Are we 'there' yet? Is everything perfect and hunky-dory WRT classes based on 'fame or fortune'? No. Of course not.
Will we get there by MANDATING such a system based on 'political correctness' (instead of 'fame and fortune') determined by an elite?
Feh.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #191,113
1/21/05 6:03:21 PM
|
{sheesh} Take 2 aspirin and read Animal Farm again..
|
Post #191,378
1/24/05 1:39:16 PM
|
How can you say that...
We do NOT have a system that legislates an ELITE with more rights than the second class. I don't know how you can say that w/ a straignt face, whan all you have to do is look at the last set of tax "equalization" legislation, or the proposed legislation to "save" social security. It's all there, Skip....blackletter law that confirms jake123's point. jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #191,388
1/24/05 2:09:11 PM
|
And these things infringe on rights exactly how?
What does cash have to do with ANY of this? Money and privelege, OK. Yes, the monied have more priveleges.
Money and rights, where? Where do the wealthy have more rights than the poor under law?
WHERE?
They DON'T.
Look - I don't like the inequity in our society; I don't particularly like the fact that the middle class is being eaten alive. I don't like the social stigma we lavish on the poor. We can do better. I've been on the poor end of the 'stick'. Too many times in my life. The law never took away my rights because of that. I could still vote for whomever I wanted to; I could still complain about things to anybody I wanted. All my RIGHTS remained intact. I had a right to trial, and representation even if I couldn't afford it.
Where did I ever say that our society or people are perfect, above reproach? No. What I said was that there is NO legislation that mandates an elite and a second class, and there isn't any.
I'm right in this; you know it.
My problem was with the idea that an elite would be formed. That only those with politically correct thoughts should be allowed to participate in government. The idea is appling to me.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #191,395
1/24/05 3:24:40 PM
|
Clue 1: According to the US Supreme Court, Money == Speech.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #191,400
1/24/05 4:14:44 PM
|
Izzatso?
Show me the ruling that says that. Show me the ruling that says I can't speak my mind if I have no money.
DON'T show a ruling that says either: the wealthy can use thier money to make thier 'speech' louder, or a ruling that says the wealthy aren't required to use thier money to help the poor to 'speak'.
Don't give me some bs rationale that tells me that ANYBODY has a right to an audience.
'Clue', my ass. I think you guys are reaching, hard.
Here's a clue for you: not everybody has equal means; not everybody has equal power, not everybody has equal privilege. Everybody starts out with the same basic rights, however.
Or do you think that privilege=rights, rights=privilege?
Privileges are NOT protected under law the way that rights are.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,801
1/19/05 12:39:44 PM
|
Rich and poor alike have the same prohibition.
Neither are allowed to sleep under a bridge.
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
Post #190,806
1/19/05 1:26:02 PM
|
Well, that's not legislated
Imric got you to admit that it's more of "natural order of things" under our corrupt system than any specific legislation. Good
Now, since you seem to dislike "Thems that has, gets, thems that don't, don't", let's consider the alternative.
Let's see...
Thems that has, LOSES, thems that don't, GETS.
Do I get it right? As soon as I have something, it gets taken away from me and re-distributed to "have nots". Is this the idea?
The difference beween the rule you dislike and the rule I dislike is that the current rule does not prohibit the poor to own things, it is simply harder for them to get things - they don't get automatic benefits such as parent-sponsored college or dividents on inheritance, but they are not prohibited from going to college, if they value education more than food. The new rule prohibits rich people to own anything. As soon as you have excess, it gets redistributed.
Yes, I am using Reduction Ad Absurdum. I think it's justified, though, because all attempts to implement the new rule did end up in bloody absurd.
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #190,550
1/18/05 1:32:13 AM
|
The acronym TPOTPS doesn't have quite the ring of,
(\ufffd..for the Protection of the People and the State.\ufffd) The pat/RIOT Act, of course. But the sediments seem farmily-valuez familiar, to coin a pharse Almost exactly 70 years following The Enabling Act the US launched its first-ever invasion of a State which had exhibited no aggressive action towards the US. Except say, not liking US very much.. Sudetenland? Danzig? the beat goes on --> (Of course too, the US has The People's Court exterritorially: on its own Devil's Island portion (\ufffd l\ufffd Haiti/Dominican) of that dangerously non-Republican embarrassment, just south of the Florida Keys.) Scary bit of deja vu - The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country. Hornberger's quite a [link|http://www.fff.org/aboutUs/press/fc.asp| trip.] But I like [link|http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhihitler.html| Mahatma Gandhi's letters to Hitler] for a change of pace. The remainder and substance of this short letter reads: "It is quite clear that you are today the one person in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage state. Must you pay that price for an object however worthy it may appear to you to be? Will you listen to the appeal of one who has deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?" Before that-all and Lindbergh's rah rah Nazi apologia, we had our home-grown Father Coughlan - no doubt the model for the preacher/dictator in It Can't Happen Here. As to what the combo of 'sheeple' + nukes might wrought? cha cha cha '04 Synchronicity? or just
In the final analysis, everything is related to everything else
Ashley Brilliant
|
Post #190,485
1/17/05 2:06:07 PM
|
Now THAT'S a question
I wish I had an answer to!
Rebellion?
I hope it doesn't come to that; I fear it might. I find myself unable to recommend bloody rebellion - and if the 2/3 majority is against it, any rebellion would prove futile, IMO.
I dunno.
I have no new, novel form of government to suggest.
In the past, people could flee to the wilderness and start over; are we now doomed to be stuck until we create wilderness out of our own country?
Let me know if you think of anything that doesn't either a) require a ruling elite & underclasses based on either physical or philosophical differences, or b) relies on a level of self-sacrifice and/or maturity that the human race has yet to demonstrate and c) resists stagnation and decay.
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #190,504
1/17/05 6:08:07 PM
|
Like Picard said to the Borg...
Resistance is not futile!
After, all, it's working in Iraq....
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
