Ben No.3

Is this true ? How many are we talking about and was the slowdown due to people being deported?I think it's just theoretical at this point. Do you actually buy that?I wouldn't say it if I didn't. I was just pointing out that the situation isn't as unreasonable as it was portrayed in the ad. If you mean about the schools, then yes, many schools are nasty and dangerous. I understand it's more complex than just "it's all the schools' fault". Edit: lol, we need some spikes on that wall: http://www.breitbart.com/border/2017/03/04/mexican-politician-climbed-border-fence-call-trumps-wall/ You think spikes will stop anyone? Look at all these security measures. These are great security measures. They're fantastic. From that yuuge tower, soldiers, tremendous people, will shoot anyone who tries to get past the wall. It's true. I love it. Now, some might say that people got across this wall anyway. That they build tunnels. Used Ballons. That there are even instances where the people of the other side helped them flee. Some say no matter how good the wall, people will always get past it. But anyone who says that is lying. He is fake news!

There are worse deaths... essentially, he died surrounded by sex

Had to laugh at this, simply for reminding me of this forum....

I think Trump just needs to get used to the idea of checks and balances... he found out he can't do everything, unlike when leading a company, and that frustrates him.

Double post

Du bist *ein Verräter=you (sg) are a traitor *Ihr seid alle Verräter=you (pl) are all traitors

Don't tell a German he will become a Nazi! Seriously That is ignorant on so many levels. Besides, all I did was questioning current ideologies. So please. Shut up. All I want is a nice debate. There is no need for this ad hominem crap, So do me a favour and shut up.

You said you didn't know much about Catalonia ^^

When I'm saying Catalonia (part of Spain) I'm referring to the revolution that took place there in the thirties. Somewhat of an anarchosyndicalist kinda deal. They managed somehow though

Catalonia? Granted, it lost a war. And it certainly wasn't perfect. But it seems like when anarchists are in power they manage to archive something at least.

If the majority says so, why not? Again, extreme example to give you an idea of the notion...

Well in ideal word majority would not vote/force laws which goes against their interest where in dictator regime ruler pretty much can do whatever he likes no matter if its benefit for majority, its quite simple no? No. Because the majority can still do anything they want, and for te minority it makes no difference to be ruled by them or the dictator. Let's say there are 49% women and 51% men in a country. What would stop the men from declaring all women slaves? Now, this is a very extreme example, but I hope you get the notion

The very foundation of what makes our(!) democracy: I am putting the question out there as to why being ruled over by the majority of voters is different from being ruled over by a dictator. Just a topic that is interesting to discuss. While we are at it: What is the reason we should be able to own anything? From a philosophical standpoint And what is the reason government should be able to impose rules? Again, not saying this because I necessarily hold these views, but because I think they might trigger some interesting discussion...

No but I for sure support decentralization of power So what do you think of his idea that majority rule is basically not all to different from dictatorship?

Yeah, he was no different from Stalin, just with less possibilities at his disposal And would you judge the concept of democracy by Robespierre? Then why do you judge Communism by Stalin?

I mean look at gandhi... you people sympathise with him, right? Gandhi, my friends, is a full on anarchist According to Dr. Dhawan, "Gandhi was a philosophical Anarchist because he believed that the "[the greatest good of all] can be realized only in the classless, stateless democracy."2 While Gandhi advocated democracy, he differentiated between direct democracy and western democracy. Commenting on the parliamentary system, Gandhi says, "If India copies England, it is my firm conviction that she will be ruined. Parliaments are merely emblems of slavery."3 He had no more appetite for majority democracy of America, "It is a superstition and an ungodly thing to believe that an act of a majority binds a minority."4 By centralizing power, western democracies feed into violence. Thus, he thought decentralization was the key to world peace." This is from an Indian historian. Don't get me wrong, I still like Gandhi But I don't think many of you would've supported anarchism And I think we can agree anarchism is a fairly extreme ideology So what defies an extremist for you? And does it necessarily have to be a bad thing? To me, an extremist is someone following a very extreme path of any ideology. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, but it can easily lead to unnecessary violence, thus I'm very sceptical.

getting rid of previous rules who promoted slavery is not extremism in my book, if he killed anyone who was not part of his movement that would be probably different story. Only revolution which didn't get rid of previous rulers was ours (Velvet revolution) and it sucked ...Except Louis wasn't executed for his involvement in slavery, but rather being a "threat" to national stability. I think we should consider it a symbolic act...

Yes. Remember the election that just happened? He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme. Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted. See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.it's similar to saying Adam Smith would probably today be a social democrat as well (which I agree with) rather than a liberal (in the European sense)... it's an argument about their intentions behind their theories, not the theories themselves.A biographical discussion, not theory based. Then it becomes even more clear you haven't read their work if that's the conclusion you've drawn. Both Smith and Marx advocated for the freedom of an oppressed class. In the case of Smith, this was the small business man. In the case of Marx this was the proletarian. Their methods were different though. Smith believed in Reform, so he tried to prove why more freedom for the small man and the abolishment of slavery would economically profit a country; his goal was essentially to convince the ruling class to give up some of there power over the people in there own interests. Marx of course believed in revolution and the violent overthrow of the class system. This is why he tried to appeal to the proletariat and openly attacked the upper class. But in essence, they both just wanted freedom for people who were oppressed at the time they were writing their major works. And Smith would have never supported the way capitalism developed after the industrial revolution, and Marx would've never supported the way communism developed. For both of them, the development went against the motivation behind their theories. In how in today's world, most countries have s healthy mix of capitalist and socialist policies 8 don't think either of them would take on such radical positions as they did, be it the total free market or the communist revolution. I think they would both be left wingers, so somewhere between social democrats and socialists. So tell me Where am I mistaken?

getting rid of previous rules who promoted slavery is not extremism in my book, if he killed anyone who was not part of his movement that would be probably different story. Only revolution which didn't get rid of previous rulers was ours (Velvet revolution) and it sucked Its like you would mark Lincoln as extremist It comes down to what you define as an extremist. Again, of you say Robespierre isn't an extremist, neither is Lenin Sorry to bring up the example so often, but it simply is a good one

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!Democracy?Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring.name one democratic extremistRobespierre OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism So is Lenin an extremist then?

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted. See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.it's similar to saying Adam Smith would probably today be a social democrat as well (which I agree with) rather than a liberal (in the European sense)... it's an argument about their intentions behind their theories, not the theories themselves. A biographical discussion, not theory based.

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!Democracy?Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring. name one democratic extremistWell democracy has produced US foreign policy. Sort of I think Robespierre is the better example... you can call US foreign policy undemocratic, but Robespierre is essentially Democracy's Lenin.

Well yeah because it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to drag Marx into every discussion, at least bother to read more than a wikipedia article. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ At the very least read that so you can stop claiming Germany's social democracy is what Marx actually wanted. See, you simply misunderstood me. I was not saying that 18th Century communist Marx would have supported our social democracy. I was saying that if Marx was born today, he probably would be satisfied enough to be a social democrat (rather than a communist). This is simply because a social market system is very different from Victorian capitalism.

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one!Democracy?Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring. name one democratic extremist Robespierre

Name me one ideology that has not and could not produce extremists. Let's start with one! Democracy? Democracy? Oh please... democracy is one of the most radical ideologies ever to exist. Ask the American independence fighters. The French revolutionaries. More recently, ask those involved in the Arab spring. Regarding gulags, dictatorship is a league of its own. Like extremism, dictatorship can occur with any ideology. Maybe aside from democracy, anarchy, etc. but even that can at least pave the way for dictatorship. And of course, the dictatorship will always pretend to fulfill their "ideologies" demands. But everyone who is able and willing to think will often see that they are lying.