Republican: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear red ties
Democrats: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear blue ties
@freemo
The longer we keep a two party system the further we will keep this red v blue mentality. I wonder if I will ever see an independent sworn in before I die of climate change.
I see you continue to post bad takes… Just a reminder FPtP voting has been the norm in the USA for its existance… Third parties have managed to become cominated parties 8 times in our history (though not in recent history)
FPtP only gives the illusion of a two party system where support for third parties will be masked with 1% or 2% votes until they get a majority support and then their votes will flip from 1 or 2% one year to 50%+ the next (what has happened in the 8 historic examples).
@Darkayne While the two party system isnt helping , and yea partly the cause I think people becoming polarized is such a deep rooted issue at this point im not sure if we will ever truely see sanity
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Everyone that votes for party that has an agenda of "doing something" other than dismantling the gang of thieves, known as government, are Authoritarian Tyrant Worshipers.
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Except its literally not. The primary definition of democracy doesnt even use the word majority:
“a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections”
In fact while there are other secondary definitions that include majority, those definitions apply only when used more generally (as in not specific to the context of national governments)
In fact we only need to look at example to know what you said is false, The USA, the UK, and effectively every nation in the world, doesnt have a simple majority to win. In fact all these nations are designed to have some mechanism to ensure a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority, isnt possible.
You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
Remove the "majority" if you like, it is still Authoritarian, just a matter "how much".
> You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
You can, and we do. The electorial college is an example of that, it ensures that most disseperate cultures and their regions have some agreement on votes... it isnt purely majority based (you need to get close to a majority but can win even without one)... but also is fairly balanced so fringe ideas cant win either.
It is a prime example of democracy that is not a simple majority.
My thesis is "Democracy is Authoritarian", because it forces some people to do what other people think that they should do, and willing to use violence to achieve it.
I don't object to Libertarians or libertarians, I was one in practice (didn't know the terms) when I was young. But I can't reconcile "law" with "freedom", no matter how it is "legislated". All laws we agree on are not needed, hence other laws are enforcing some people's will on others, and that is what I finally realized, maybe 15 years ago or so.
There are two aspects to this... one is that laws are vastly over used to negative effect... sure we agree here.
The other is if ALL law is counter to freedom... and the answer is, no, unless you getinto rediculous things like "Making murder illegal infringes on my freedom to murder people"
>If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
>
>But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed—by any power inferior to that which established it—than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men—whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name—to set up their [PAGE 12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.
Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
Why is that so hard to get?
From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
> Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
>
> Why is that so hard to get?
It isnt hard to understand, it also isnt what I asked or said.
> From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
Oh so you are actually all for governments that use for an coercion. So long as you can leave.
Ok so how is it inforced that they let you? I mean they decide according to their rules you arent allowed to leave cause they dont like your face and instead you will be tortured for life... Since you said the rule here should be that you are allowed to leave, so when that rule is broken, who, in your system comes in and forces that commune to let you go?
NP being a non-anarchist Libertarian I have never really had a chance to hear how people might address the loopholes I see. So I appreciate hearing your perspective.
It is yet to be determined if i see it as workable or not, but i do think the discussion is usedul
Wrong order; If you AGREE then it is up to you and your fellows in that group of people do together. It is voluntary, making agreements and collaboratively working together.
It is not so much as "leaving" as it is "joining". I doubt people would join a classic slave farm where you sign over the right of the master to whip you without reason. And rational people wouldn't sign up for a classical government either.
I don't have all answers. But violence is immoral.
Ues but I am talking about before you get to the point where you have your own crew and set off...
You are born to a deadbeat commune, they are abusive... by the time you are old enough to realize they are abusive you say "I wanna leave and find my own people I trust and start my own"... the others hear you aand go "fuck you" then lock you up in the basement and torture you.... Thats where you are at right now...
Explain either what would have prevented this from happening at all (some govt regulating whats right or wrong and saving you)... or, how you'd get out of it... Or is your scenario and world one where now you just die ?
I see that you basically say "You are there now. So now what?"
Well, morally speaking; I can kill everyone trying to stop me from leaving. Will I succeed? Probably not. Will I try? Probably not. But I could also convince a critical mass about how wrong it is (for those born into it), that we do it together.
The only "cause" we need to agree to, is that "other people have no right to use violence against us". Then we can disagree on everything else how it should be.
Ok so far answer... not much you could do, youll probably die, but might inspire change through your death... Ok not sure that is a desirable way for that to go down but ill accept that at least.
Ok so the main idea is, anyone can leave or join a commune at their own risk.. they may rape and torture you they may just be mean and let you go... who knows...
Ok sot hat makes these communes as small nations, they can set any rules, and internally support eachohter and potentially fight with other communes or trade with them.
Ok so what stops one commune from getting so large it takes over all the space, and this commune sets rules that you arent allowed to leave, but even if you could leave they take up the whole country now so it wouldnt matter... you are back at a counter.
This sounds like modern day countries just with extra steps and starting from scratch again... But the end result (As it always has been hsitorically) is 100% of space will be owned and controlled by countries (or communes as you state it).
No. Morally speaking, they can't fight with others.
Why wouldn't history repeat? Good question. That is asking for predicting the future.
The France revolution reverted to an emperor once, but not a second time. Why?
I think that people are getting wiser to "rulers" and with equalization of fighting power through modern weapons it should be much harder to re-establish the State.
Your question is equally damning to the libertarian position; "Guns can take control."
No. Morally speaking, they can’t fight with others.
Well people are very much not moral, at least not all of them, and certainly not a majority. So if your only relying on morality to stop that, then im afraid the system can work IMO.
Why wouldn’t history repeat? Good question. That is asking for predicting the future.
Im not asking you to predict the future. But its happened hundreds of thousands of times across the globe every time where a no-rules group of people eventually formed individual communities and over time those evolved into goverments.
So unless your doing something different, and it doesnt sound like you are other than hitting the reset sqitch on governments. Then the only rasonable conclusion is youll get the same results int he end.
The France revolution reverted to an emperor once, but not a second time. Why?
And yet not a single place int eh world has ever not formed into a single massive government you arent allowed to leave freely with.. like never, not in france or any other nation…
The way i see it if governments have always formed and become pervasive then there is simply no logical reason thinking doing it again will somehow not result in that same ending.
I think that people are getting wiser to “rulers” and with equalization of fighting power through modern weapons it should be much harder to re-establish the State.
They might get wiser to rulers, sure, but your system still relies on rules, the commune is your ruler now and whatever rules they impose..
I can say this, if people in their currently mentality tried this, you’d have a national government back in place by the end of the week. PEople are violent and intolerant of other people with different views… cant see this working more than a few days at best.
Regarding France; My point was that humanity is slowly evolving. It took a couple of attempts (Napoleon I & III) of stepping away from emperors/dictators there.
And I think you have misunderstood "the commune". IF (I never said I would) you join a commune (as in communism) you have the right to AGREE to any absurdity you want. I don't think many would.
Over time, I think incentives will work better than coercion.
Yes, voluntaryism is the only conclusion the question about "initiation of violence is wrong" and that no gang of people can ever get a right that each and everyone of us already have.
Unfortunately, most people don't know what anarchism is, mostly associate it with "chaos and mayhem" (plus some authoritarian communists claim the term for their ideology), but just about everyone are voluntaryists at heart, and need "schooling" to think otherwise.
@niclas@freemo@Darkayne I kind of agree with this in spirit, but also believe some sort of minimum government is required for basic infrastructure, healthcare, police, etc.
And many of the slaves were convinced that their own enslavement was better for them than "free men", so it is understandable to be "nervous" on how it could possibly work without these institutions of evil.
I don't have that answer, but I totally agree with the image you posted. Society is THAT absurd.
I ronically slaves remaining slaves for their own good was not just an invention of slave owners (though perhaps that happened too)... It was a legitimate concern for some slaves. Being free was often a death sentance.
Obviously in the long term being free has been great for them and it is obviously the right thing to do. But in the short term it meant certain death for many with no food, work, job, and just the fact that without a master people will be a lot quicker to kill you. If you had a kind and generous master (of course not many did) I can see why objectively you might want to remain a slave givin the conditions in the world at the time for a free black man.
Yes. And why people today are so set on having a Master to "protect" them. Fear is the primary weapon of people who want to assert control over others.
Because someone needs to organize our collective resources to achieve greater works.. even if the people do this through elected and selected charities, they have no choosen a "master" over that aspect.
As long as there is no coercion and violence against individuals, then that is fine. But I presume you will argue that there must be, in which case I am not on-board.
Classical rebuttal; "Someone has to pick the cotton."
Ok so how do you deal with people who generally today are only handle with violence or coercion.
How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?
Presuming you are ok with using biolence to prevent a greater violence then who gets to determine that? Is it a court? In which case your back to governments that use violence... Is it some ransom individual? In which case you are back to a mob applying that violence.
"How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?"
I have repeatedly pointed out that self-defense is the only justification for violence. And it is a right I have, hence I can delegate that right to someone else. I don't have to, but I can.
How does that work when your locked in a basement of the evil commune and they are torturing you... you wont have any way to call or obtain someone to defend you, and you cant defend yourself... So shit out of luck and you just die your dropped your guard for a moment?
Depends on the definition of the word.. im using racism based on the threshold most on the left use it, which is much lower than someone on the right like you
For example "If you dont vote for me you ain't black"... He probably didnt think that statement had any hate behind it in his mind.. but I'd still consider that racist.
@freemo> For example “If you dont vote for me you ain’t black”… He probably didnt think that statement had any hate behind it in his mind.. but I’d still consider that racist.
Well, I think it’s a bit unfair to take #JoeBiden’s statements as indicative of the attitude that most members of the #Democrat party has towards black people. That dude used to kick it with the #KKK and support segregation, which most Democrats haven’t done.
@realcaseyrollins I mean thats fine.. but he also won both the super delegates and the party election...
If we agree he and much of what he says is racist then its hard to deny the democratic party, having supported him, isnt racist.
I do agree with you Biden is far more racist than your average member. But the average member wills till violently object to calling him racist... which suggests to me they condone what he has said and done
@louisrcouture That has been overwhelmingly not my expiernce.. In face while both are overwhelmingly fascist I've foudn when it comes to the authoritative aspect of it (which is the most important IMO) the democrats are in fact a bit worse than the right.
@louisrcouture Of course its not, I never claimed it was. Nor did I even suggest it was...
Authoritativism is a measure of government that has nothing to do with "things you dont like"... it has to do with how much the policies rely on force, and violence vs how much the policies try effect cultural change or other "softer" approaches.
A law that chops off your hands when you still is very authoritative... a law that puts you in jail for a long time is fairly authoritative too... if instead the government tries to reduce crime via investing in better mental health access, paid for by taxes, thats still a bit authoritative but far far less so... the same programs however paid for by donations wouldnt be authoritative at all.
Authoritativeism has nothing to do with what you like and everything to do with how much force a government assumes in its policies.
Literally almost everytthing they do... They are "big government" (controlling people with lots of rules that carry with it violent threats).. as opposed to small government (minimizing how often they make rules or exert control).
The only difference is the left is fascist-left, they make laws that force you to sacrafice your own individual freedoms for the greater good, or get a gun pointed at you and jail time. The right is fascist-right, they too make laws that force by threat of violence as the norm.. but in their case their laws simply focus on personal freedom even if it is at the expense of the collective good..
Authoritarianism doesn't seem too much different between the two... which is at the heart of fascism.
@freemo so rules are facist? Is it facism if the state won't let me sell alcoholic drinks made with orange juice and rubber alcohol? Is it facism if the state won't let me drive at 120kph in a school zones? What about carrying an AK47 to the store, or asking people to wear a mask to protect everyone against a deadly virus ?
No, In my earlier post I explained exactly what sort of rule is fascist and what isnt… I made this clear and I know your a smart guy, but that means you just applied reductivism in bad faith in an attempt to argue in an intellectually dishonest way… Dont do that, you are better than that.
Rules that are
Having lots of them is more authoritative than trying to have the bare minimum needed… Having rules isnt authoritative, but when you feel you need to make rules for everything then it is more authoritative than a party which tries to find social solutions
When those rules carry with them harsh penalties they become more authoritative also.. Both the democrats and republicans right now support the death penalty for example. So both are very much authoritative in the severity they are willing to attach to their rules as well.
Is it facism if the state won’t let me sell alcoholic drinks made with orange juice and rubber alcohol?
That would be more authoritative (and thus more fascist) than a government that had no rule around that.
That said I never claimed all authoritative rules, are wrong.. There is a reasonable level of authoritarianism which is acceptable, and there is a qty that isnt. Where botht he democrats and republicans are the level of authoratarianism they exhibit is unacceptable.
Not to mention both the parties int he USA support hte idea than prison should be a punishment.. So we put people away for decades with hte intent of them suffering in prison… So yes both sides are very fascist as this is the norm consequence for every law.
Other countries (not all) prison is seen as rehabilitation. Those countries are far less fascist.
@freemo@louisrcouture Prison was originally for restitution (actually paying back the theft) - which is rehabilitative. Somehow that morphed into punishment. Probably because of morphing the death penalty for murder into prison time.
@freemo@louisrcouture> Authoritarianism doesn’t seem too much different between the two… which is at the heart of fascism.
Yes but I think there needs to be private sector cooperation with authoritarian activities in order to call someone a legitimate modern fascist. I think #JacindaArdern and #RonDesantis are good examples of this.
Why is it only authoritarian if it comes from corperations? So if you have a communistic society where no corperations exist, all just the government.. communism cant be authoritative? That doesnt track.
@freemo@louisrcouture> So if you have a communistic society where no corperations exist, all just the government
I do think that would be fascism too. Fascism usually has the state take over private enterprises, or force them to do what they want, which aren’t effectually that much different from each other.
I think you are confusing specific examples of facism vs facism as a concept (which can take any form)... The definition of facism is:
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
@freemo Ds are not very liberal. At one time maybe, but i don't see much liberal thinking in general. They preach tolerance and understanding only to their friends, but not to everyone.
They are very left, but not liberal.. they kinda bastardized the word.. though it is what people think of when they mean liberal in the modern era, even though it has little resemblance to the classical term.
Most of us call it "neoliberal" or new liberal, though some may use that in a more narrow scope than "non-classically liberal".. depends who you ask.
Dems love to confuse words so they can win on semantic arguments rather than morals.
do i need to explain to you why it's normal for countries that a further away from the equator to have white-skin-people and by extension white-skin-people in the government?
Well very few natives left in USA (I am a rarity for sure)... But obviously the native americans show about the skin color one would expect int he USA naturally.
Add comment