User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 77

  1. #11
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polly View Post
    European democracy is not built on "too much freedom". Opposite to the american democracy it is much more humanitarian, social, and open minded and provides more ways of understanding and explanations. European democracy is more open to people and their needs, while the american is more open to business and possibilities, with very strong belief and moral system. Also you can't say just "European democracy" , Europe doesn't exists as a state, but as a union of different and politically independent sates with different types of democracy, leadership and system. Every state has it's own way to manage their country. You can't ever say right/wrong democracy. Europe developed its political system, when indians in america were hunting bison. Democracy in America is built on this right/wrong system, democrats/republicans, liberalism/conservative...
    Actually the French invented the Right vs Left thing, and havent been able to get past it.

    While in Europe you have the wide circle of different approaches and political parts. So yes democracy in Europe is much more free and open.... Why would it lead us to totality?
    Look at history a little.

    We still have free schools, free universities, free medical care, medias, that don't wash up our minds, we can say what we really want and believe in without being called the terorists... Eurpe just doesn't need that strong moral and belief system as America need it... be honest... look what happend to you... Bush... really? Obama... not bad, but stil... You are to going Syria? Oh...I thought so, you can't find oil in Egypt right?
    Just to be sure, with all this talk of diversity, you think that NAZI and Islmamist parties should be tolerated?

    Bi partisan politics is a big part of American politcs yes, but thats isnt my point. I dont really like the bi partisan system either, I dont mind there being more than two poltical parties involved, but thats way beside my point, which is that certain parties shouldnt be tolerated at all.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    No its not, not liberterian nor a platitude.

    My ideal of government is something along the lines of a more tradional aristocracy. Aristcoracy is the opposite of democracy, in that leaders simply are not elected but attain government positions through birthright, or divine right.

    Libertarinism is something different, being a relatively new phenomenon, it is simply right wing economics mixed with anti governmentism.

    Libertarians want as little possible strain from that governemnt as possible, and thats part of the problem I describe: wanting too much freedom in an organized society. I dont want that.

    Also I did say that Democracy was fine in America, but not in Europe or the Middle East for humanitarian reasons. Morsi's concept of democracy, founded on Charia law(which according to Morsi is the "highest expression of democracy"), kills people.

    The only real platitude in people's mouths is the word "democracy", used a synonym of good government.
    It sounds more like you're in favour of feudalism. Especially given that you think freedom is a bad thing.

    You've got a pretty poor understanding of what democracy is or ought to be but then you're no exception in that regard, I dont believe in divine right and I dont believe there's anything substantively different between "aristocracy" and the plutonomy which reigns in libertarian orders or which is threatened by democracy.

    I am a socialist I think democracy should go beyond political life to economic and social life too.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Actually the French invented the Right vs Left thing, and havent been able to get past it.



    Look at history a little.



    Just to be sure, with all this talk of diversity, you think that NAZI and Islmamist parties should be tolerated?

    Bi partisan politics is a big part of American politcs yes, but thats isnt my point. I dont really like the bi partisan system either, I dont mind there being more than two poltical parties involved, but thats way beside my point, which is that certain parties shouldnt be tolerated at all.
    I don't get this... Who the hell told you we tolerate nazi parts?! We had Hitler, you had Bush deal with it. It's a history, any sayings, or makrs that might involved nazism, or fascism are prohibited by the law. Just saying "Hail" with your right arm up costs you 50 euros of fine. Other nazi marks, propaganda, sayings are punished by prison. And what is your deal with islam? Saying that all muslims and their whole religion is bad, is the same thing like saying: "all jews to the gass!" Who is the nazi here?

  4. #14
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It sounds more like you're in favour of feudalism. Especially given that you think freedom is a bad thing.
    Ill google that. Anything in excess is bad, and that includes freedom, but if you read what I wrote, you would understand I was only saying that having freedom taken away by a dictator is a bad thing. I other words, freedom, is actually a good thing in moderation.

    You've got a pretty poor understanding of what democracy is or ought to be but then you're no exception in that regard I dont believe in divine right and I dont believe there's anything substantively different between "aristocracy" and the plutonomy which reigns in libertarian orders or which is threatened by democracy.
    I admit that Ive never been the best at Politcal Science, yeah, but I dunno. I admit there is something similar between aristocracy and the idealizations of a thinker like Hans Hermann Hoppe for example, where Monarchy is seen a superior form of government to Democracy, but take a someone like Ayn Rand for example, I cant imagine her being in favor of any aristocracy of sorts like I am.

    I am a socialist I think democracy should go beyond political life to economic and social life too.
    I knew you were a socialist, I cant say I am, I do think social programs can be benefical to people with health problems etc, but Im not a huge fan of it either as I know many people who are on welfare programs of some sort and seem to use that as an excuse to not work. I understand there are some people with mental or physical health diffuculties who cant work, but thats different. But then again, level of empolyemnt is not related to socialism or capitalism.

  5. #15
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    I really don't think you understand why I said what I did...

    Also,

    Quote Originally Posted by Polly View Post
    We had Hitler, you had Bush deal with it.
    lol

  6. #16
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polly View Post
    I don't get this... Who the hell told you we tolerate nazi parts?! We had Hitler, you had Bush deal with it. It's a history, any sayings, or makrs that might involved nazism, or fascism are prohibited by the law. Just saying "Hail" with your right arm up costs you 50 euros of fine.
    Other nazi marks, propaganda, sayings are punished by prison. And what is your deal with islam? Saying that all muslims and their whole religion is bad, is the same thing like saying: "all jews to the gass!" Who is the nazi here?
    Your assumptions are in bold.

    And this is funny.

  7. #17
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    I really don't think you understand why I said what I did...
    Did Lark understand?

  8. #18
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Did Lark understand?
    I think he did, and went another direction with it maybe. I liked this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    People should govern themselves, unless they are working people and vote together.
    The core of it really overrides libertarian presuppositions, that a democracy is a collective establishment of law and regulations.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Ill google that. Anything in excess is bad, and that includes freedom, but if you read what I wrote, you would understand I was only saying that having freedom taken away by a dictator is a bad thing. I other words, freedom, is actually a good thing in moderation.
    I dont believe so.

    I admit that Ive never been the best at Politcal Science, yeah, but I dunno. I admit there is something similar between aristocracy and the idealizations of a thinker like Hans Hermann Hoppe for example, where Monarchy is seen a superior form of government to Democracy, but take a someone like Ayn Rand for example, I cant imagine her being in favor of any aristocracy of sorts like I am.
    The reasoning for monarchy being superior to other forms of government is generally to do with tradition and its transmission across generations, stability and continuity amid tumultuous short term thinking or the chaotic rise and fall of individuals (liberalism), elites (conservatism) or public (socialism) but that is a silent monarchy and constitutional monarchy, its only possible to make that argument because it is the background and one of the other factors is the foreground (liberalism, conservatism, socialism).

    The fact that Rand would support it would INSTANTLY make be detest it. No doubt.

    I knew you were a socialist, I cant say I am, I do think social programs can be benefical to people with health problems etc, but Im not a huge fan of it either as I know many people who are on welfare programs of some sort and seem to use that as an excuse to not work. I understand there are some people with mental or physical health diffuculties who cant work, but thats different. But then again, level of empolyemnt is not related to socialism or capitalism.
    Those things you mention I dont associate with socialism, socialism predated them all and will postdate them all, there's plenty of good writers who have focused upon the fact that the state is not a means for the introduction or furthering of socialism and I believe that's fundamentally correct.

    The welfare state, public and health services, mixed ownership and administration of services, taxation and spending, those are all factors of public policy and there are interventionist states which use freemarkets, such as German, France, Sweden, in their health services, there are other freemarketeer states which use public spending and intervention in health services, such as America and the UK, I dont believe it has anything to do with socialism at all. Partisans on the left and right wing argue it is but they can be safely left to their tennis match, they need each other, each others narratives support one another but anyone who is an actual thinker and safely leave them to one side.

    Socialism I dont think is about whether people can work or not or the availability of health services, I dont believe that at all, those are questions of efficiency, equity, public ethics even but not socialism. I think socialism has to do with the importance of social struggles and class struggles for public life and the economy. I do believe that an active citizenry and participatory democracy is necessary components of that, it should be in the economic sphere and workplace, not just an annual polling at election time. I see that as all necessary to make good on all the "old promises" of liberalism or anything else, about personal responsibility etc. and not just to deliver on the promise of better times than these.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    I think he did, and went another direction with it maybe. I liked this:

    The core of it really overrides libertarian presuppositions, that a democracy is a collective establishment of law and regulations.
    That's the view of the plutonomy I mentioned, democracy is great until it messes with the transfer of public money to private off shore accounts or the elites favourite tax dodges, fiddles and phony profits, ie cutting wages, workforce and consumer rights.

    My view of democracy is that it is intended to reflect popular sovereignty, which is necessary collorary to individual sovereignty in public life.

    Individuals are necessary self-governing, that is an objective fact whatever way public life is organised, however that can be supported or diminished by the extent to which popular sovereignty is supported or repressed. Responsible individuals should mean a responsible public should mean that professionals and politicians can do their thing but they are expendable, in a crisis or a breakdown, when professionals or politicians are not available or cant provide remedy, then suffering is minimised because a responsible public can act instead. A community should be like a ship, everyone should be prepared to take the wheel.

    Conservatives see that sort of public life as a substitue for welfare and public spending, they'd eliminate those things in favour of the deseperate measures people pull together in a crisis and pass on the saving as a new tax dodge to their rich buddies, liberals might believe that, they might err more on the side of what I'd call democratic socialism, liberalism is one of those dodgy creedos which can go either way, the bisexuality of politics and I've never liked it.

Similar Threads

  1. Study: Stem Cell Breakthrough Opens Door To Same-Sex Couples Having Their Own Babies
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-23-2015, 04:58 AM
  2. [SP] An open letter to all SPs from a hard-core INFP
    By Abstract Thinker in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-11-2010, 09:42 PM
  3. Is Morality an Open and Closed Matter?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-22-2009, 05:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO