A Political Thought Experiment

[Anonymouse]

True true. I still stand by my theory of the bus and the cliff.

Perhaps you should expand on your theory.

 

On a side note, I think I'll start a thread about democracy, or more like a Critique of it or how it is a failure, contrary to popular wisdom.

[den_wolf]

Perhaps you should expand on your theory.

 

I did. On page 3 of the thread.

But to answer your question, I would choose A, no matter how much I dislike it. Because by choosing B, you are only delaying your chances of a "revolution." You must drive the pathetics to the edge of the cliff so that they'd all fall off, in order to have a better chance at re-building a society based on solid values and belief systems.

Put them all in the bus, go to the edge of the cliff, let the bus fall off, but before that happens, make sure you get out of it. Risky but rewarding if it takes place successfully. And if it doesn't, then that would be the end of that "country."

[gamavor]

I'm reading these posts and I don't know what ANYONE is talking about!Pro or Con, Head or Tail, etc. or etc. Don't blame the Jew{100%} here..I can't make heads or tails of this thread. We'll call it even...I guess!lol Yid Kid

The whole argument in this thread is based on non-existent, fictional assumptions (A v. in a imaginary situation. "A" is a rebel with mixture of conservative (freedom) treads, while "B" is a libertarian (with conservative ideas) who is wholeheartedly for the establishment.

As I said, that is a typical example of the American way of modeling. Making something out of nothing (pretty much like Hollywood).

 

"A" rebels against what??? Stalin type regime, Bush type leadership, socialism... what? Suppose that “A” is a rebel against American democracy and Constitution. How many would support him?

"B" promotes social welfare and is adamant supporter of social issues and advocates group rights in what political environment? Being socialist in capitalistic setting or being less socialist in more-or-less socialist (or totalitarian) political setting?.

 

The bad news is that this type, one-track-minded education would lead to more and more, confusion and misunderstandings be it of political or other natures.

[Sasun]

Anon I fail to see why candidate "B" is necessarily Hitler (or someone like him). I came too late to vote but I would vote for "B".

[Jewish Friend]

Hell! I'll vote for "B" also. The noisy JAPS{ "Jewish American Princesses} that live in my neighborhood in Jersey make me sick anyway. I say "B" is my man! He'll know what to do aobut it!..lol..Yid Kid

[Sasun]

and believes in the importance of sending troops into foreign countries in order to maintain order therein

Now I am hesitating to vote - I would like to ask "B" what he means. Sending troops as in Liberia, or as in Iraq? If the second then it is more like Bush and I am not voting for him, if the first then it is OK. "A" is not my candidate at any event.

[Anonymouse]

Anon I fail to see why candidate "B" is necessarily Hitler (or someone like him). I came too late to vote but I would vote for "B".

Candidate B is not necessarily Hitler, but that it may be Hitler, since Hitler was undoubtedly a central planner, a socialist, and believed in much of the same things advocates of big government believe. Those things highlighted are similar to his campaign platform, and as "democracy" goes it provides a window for such people to rise and usurp power.

 

The problem is that when Hitler ran for office those are similar to the things he stated, nothing about war, nothing about concentration camps, simply trying to get votes from the masses, and he has to same something, like all politicians. Today if a potential dictator that is going to usurp power in the long run, runs for office, he will run on the same points, but from the stated aims, it gives a clearer definition that if you vote for that candidate you are voting for someone with similar views as Hitler since people forget that Hitler's party derives from the National Socialist German Workers Party.

 

While people try to understand how 'bad' or 'evil' Hitler is, it remains that it is precisely these people that voted for him or that candidate. I hope this political thought experiment shows that since you vote for such a candidate you are in essence voting for Hitler.

[Anonymouse]

Now I am hesitating to vote - I would like to ask "B" what he means. Sending troops as in Liberia, or as in Iraq? If the second then it is more like Bush and I am not voting for him, if the first then it is OK. "A" is not my candidate at any event.

This means that they can send troops to intefere in the business of other countries, it matters not if its Liberia or in Iraq, or the manner in which they engage in it, it means they have imperialist aims and are bent on telling other people what to do, much like politics when you vote, you are telling your neighbor how to behave.

[Anoushik]

I hope this political thought experiment shows that since you vote for such a candidate you are in essence voting for Hitler.

Anonymouse, I don't think it's true. There are a lot of socialist countries that don't have "Hitlers" governing their countries. Sweden, for example. I lived there and that country is very socialist, people pay tremendous amount of taxes, the government has strict environmental laws, healthcare is almost free for everyone. Yes, it's really hard to become a millionaire in that country, but on average every family is really well taken care of. Sweden, and the Scandinavian countries in general, are always considered to have the best living standards in the world.

 

(I have no time to participate in this thread, so this is all I wanted to point out.)

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, I don't think it's true. There are a lot of socialist countries that don't have "Hitlers" governing their countries. Sweden, for example. I lived there and that country is very socialist, people pay tremendous amount of taxes, the government has strict environmental laws, healthcare is almost free for everyone. Yes, it's really hard to become a millionaire in that country, but on average every family is really well taken care of. Sweden, and the Scandinavian countries in general, are always considered to have the best living standards in the world.

 

(I have no time to participate in this thread, so this is all I wanted to point out.)

This is not an entire generalization, I'm talking about the rise of individuals who are potential dictators that will run on the platform because well, dictators can only rule in vertically integrated systems, a.k.a. centrally planned political systems. To this degree, democracy, fascism, communism, are all socialistic.

[Twilight Bark]

dictators can only rule in vertically integrated systems, a.k.a. centrally planned political systems. To this degree, democracy, fascism, communism, are all socialistic.

Since you include democracy along with fascism and communism in the "vertically integrated" group, that statement would normally be rather information-free if "vertically integrated" simply meant "organized". It's like saying a dictator can only rule in a breathable atmosphere. And if "vertically integrated" is to be taken as synonymous with "centrally planned", why does democracy have to fall in that group? One can have a decentralized democracy. American democracy has been decentralized to a significant degree, which explains a good part of the success of "American civilization". That decentralized nature has been eroding, which may not bode well for the future. But that's probably another topic.

[Anonymouse]

Since you include democracy along with fascism and communism in the "vertically integrated" group, that statement would normally be rather information-free if "vertically integrated" simply meant "organized". It's like saying a dictator can only rule in a breathable atmosphere. And if "vertically integrated" is to be taken as synonymous with "centrally planned", why does democracy have to fall in that group? One can have a decentralized democracy. American democracy has been decentralized to a significant degree, which explains a good part of the success of "American civilization". That decentralized nature has been eroding, which may not bode well for the future. But that's probably another topic.

You are right in the issue of semantics but America was never a "democracy". It was a "representative republic" based on aristocratic principles of natural law which the framers adhered to. "Democracy" is something they abhored and no one used "democracy" to describe America until the 20th century when it was coined so, especially around the time of Roosevelt and his socialistic "New Deal" policies. Perhaps the closest would be Jeffersion but even he was clearly opposed to the idea of mob rule, which is essentially what democracy is all about, the "people" ( a holistic entity ).

 

I've been meaning to start a thread on "democracy" but haven't got around to it.

[Sasun]

Anonymouse, I understand your point - people may vote for a nice guy such as "B" and after a few years he may turn out to be a fascist pig like Hitler. Quite a valid point having the record of Hitler's political track as you portraied above. However, it is not likely to happen very often. I don't think Hitler's rheatoric, political skills and personality alone played a significant role in his rise. It was rather the political circumstances at the time that led to Hitlers rise. It is because of the people who supported him and allowed his agenda to be realized, because of business elites who benefited from his agenda, and because of public at large that he was allowed and welcomed as a leader (or rather a chief).

So simply voting for a few campaign lines does not really make it. Had Hitler (or Mr. B ) been in a different society under different circumstances the same campaign lines might get him elected to be a totally different type of leader.

[Sasun]

This means that they can send troops to intefere in the business of other countries, it matters not if its Liberia or in Iraq, or the manner in which they engage in it, it means they have imperialist aims and are bent on telling other people what to do, much like politics when you vote, you are telling your neighbor how to behave.

Yeah, I am against any foreing intervention of any type particularly military if it was not asked for by the country who is supposedly being helped. In case of Liberia, they are asking for help - I see nothing wrong with foreign troops going there to help them out of chaos. If fact it is a great thing that militaries are sometimes doing good things. So, my choice is not a flat rejection of any foreign deployment of troops.

[Sasun]

Oh BTW, I have removed a lot of off-topic posts from this thread. Some were not nice but most were simply off-topic so folks please try to not divert too far away from the subject, and don't get offended when your nice and harmless (yet irrelevant) post is gone

[Jewish Friend]

Leaders do change. I remeber my country supportong a guy named Fidel Castro who preached democracy ans wanted to overthorw the dictator Batista. Shortly after the overthrow we a had a closet commie, more committed than the Soviet Union. YidKid

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, I understand your point - people may vote for a nice guy such as "B" and after a few years he may turn out to be a fascist pig like Hitler. Quite a valid point having the record of Hitler's political track as you portraied above. However, it is not likely to happen very often. I don't think Hitler's rheatoric, political skills and personality alone played a significant role in his rise. It was rather the political circumstances at the time that led to Hitlers rise. It is because of the people who supported him and allowed his agenda to be realized, because of business elites who benefited from his agenda, and because of public at large that he was allowed and welcomed as a leader (or rather a chief).

So simply voting for a few campaign lines does not really make it. Had Hitler (or Mr. B ) been in a different society under different circumstances the same campaign lines might get him elected to be a totally different type of leader.

Okay, answer me this. Do you like telling other people how to live?

[Sasun]

Okay, answer me this. Do you like telling other people how to live?

No, but why do you ask?

[Anonymouse]

No, but why do you ask?

Well, because political systems are premised on that concept. When you vote, you are not voting just for yourself, you are voting for everyone else. In essence, you are voting to tell your neighbor what to do. That is the basic underlying premise of all political systems.

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, I understand your point - people may vote for a nice guy such as "B" and after a few years he may turn out to be a fascist pig like Hitler. Quite a valid point having the record of Hitler's political track as you portraied above. However, it is not likely to happen very often. I don't think Hitler's rheatoric, political skills and personality alone played a significant role in his rise. It was rather the political circumstances at the time that led to Hitlers rise. It is because of the people who supported him and allowed his agenda to be realized, because of business elites who benefited from his agenda, and because of public at large that he was allowed and welcomed as a leader (or rather a chief).

So simply voting for a few campaign lines does not really make it. Had Hitler (or Mr. B ) been in a different society under different circumstances the same campaign lines might get him elected to be a totally different type of leader.

My example was not in anyway suggestive that everytime you vote for a socialistic candidate, that you will end up with a Hitler or Stalin protege. Not at all. My only point was that, voting for such a candidate, regardless, steers us towards more centralization, more authority, less liberty, and increased harping on the privacy and property rights of individuals.

 

Furthermore, my example was simply theoretical, not historical, since historically Hitler's rise can be attributed to many things, from Versailles, to Wall Street, but that is irrelevant since one of these factors is the democratic process of voting.

[Armat]

Well, because political systems are premised on that concept. When you vote, you are not voting just for yourself, you are voting for everyone else.

Correction! Everyone else who agrees with your choice.

In essence, you are voting to tell your neighbor what to do.

Unless of course that neighbor rather prefers to be told what to do. If not active then others will do the thinking for you or more specifically curtail the laws to fit the active majority and the passive minority like yourself will have to hold the bag.

That is the basic underlying premise of all political systems

.

from your incorrect statements fallows a wrong conclusion therefore your last sentence is out of context.

[Anonymouse]

Correction! Everyone else who agrees with your choice.

Unless of course that neighbor rather prefers to be told what to do. If not active then others will do the thinking for you or more specifically curtail the laws to fit the active majority and the passive minority like yourself will have to hold the bag.

 

from your incorrect statements fallows a wrong conclusion therefore your last sentence is out of context.

I respectfully disagree and wish to see where I made an incorrect statement. If you vote Democrat, and I don't, because I disagree with their policies, and you agree with raising of taxes, then I suffer as a result. So like I said, you are not only voting for you or those who agree, you are voting for everyone else that may not agree. That this conclusion is obvious is inescapable unless we want to live in denial. When you are voting, you are in essence saying, some people should make decisions over you, that you are incapable of making decisions for yourself, not to mention other people. To vote is to exercise free will to give up free will if someone else will be making decisions for you. It wasn't my decision for Bush to get elected, nor was it my decision to attack Iraq, nor was it my decision for Clinton to get involved in Kosovo, nor was it my decision to pay an income tax in the first place.

 

The beliefs of the balance of those who claim to be on the American government as "representatives" run counter to every classical tradition. The Greek philosophers eloquently noted that democracy always devolves into egalitarianism and tyranny. And the aristocratic founders of the American republic were highly suspicious of democracy, and brilliantly designed a republic containing measures they hoped would insure against the usual pitfalls. Of course these measures were quickly removed by Lincoln and subsequent state-hungry presidents, legislators, and jurists. The framers would recognize very little to relate to in our modern Empire.

[Armat]

V=Voting

Group A= active

Group P= passive

Group C =elected representatives

 

A+V=C

P-V=(A+V=C)

Fallows P will be left with A’s choices therefore P has no say about the outcome.This is democracy and yes majority rules.

[DominO123]

V=Voting

Group A= active

Group P= passive

Group C =elected representatives

 

A+V=C

P-V=(A+V=C)

Fallows P will be left with A’s choices therefore P has no say about the outcome.This is democracy and yes majority rules.

The next time your brother come to Montreal tell him to bring you with him.

 

You are one of a hell of an artist.

[Anonymouse]

V=Voting

Group A= active

Group P= passive

Group C =elected representatives

 

A+V=C

P-V=(A+V=C)

Fallows P will be left with A’s choices therefore P has no say about the outcome.This is democracy and yes majority rules.

You just demonstrated exactly what my point is, those that do not vote and do not wish to participate eventually get trampled by the mob, or those that vote for everyone else. Thus those that voted for Hitler, voted for everyone else as well. Because of the interests of some, everyone else had to pay a price. Your defense of Democracy assumes that everyones interests will be best served by the State, and that no one can exercise individual freedom or free will outside of the system. This is the equavlent to the epistemological error Marx committed when he assumed that all our thinking is a product of our class and that all the workers' ought to have the same interests in mind, not that it was so in reality.