Zeitgeist

[Monte Carlo]

It seems vaguely disturbing to me, there's always someone who thinks they're smarter than you, capable of thinking on a higher level and that because of this they deserve to dictate how you should live...

 

Another reason why Second Amendment rights in the US seem to make a lot of sense sometimes.

[Wrath of Dagon]

That's right, the US was founded on the principle of opposition to all forms of fascism, before fascism was even defined.

 

Edit:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

James Madison

 

He just destroys all utopias right there.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

The problem, WoD is that there is no such thing as an auxiliary to government. All controls on teh government are in themselves government, except direct election.

 

Actually, it's just occurred to me - I am a bit thick - that Guard Dog and I agree on something: that links between elected and eletorate should ve direct and personal. It's why I support the British system of MPs. Can't think why I never noticed that before.

[Monte Carlo]

For democracy to flourish you need fair-minded but flinty-eyed bastards, in the woods, heavily-armed.

 

I would move to America if the green card lottery wasn't so weighted towards countries that actively hate the USA.

[Wrath of Dagon]

The problem, WoD is that there is no such thing as an auxiliary to government. All controls on teh government are in themselves government, except direct election.

 

Actually, it's just occurred to me - I am a bit thick - that Guard Dog and I agree on something: that links between elected and eletorate should ve direct and personal. It's why I support the British system of MPs. Can't think why I never noticed that before.

Madison meant auxiliary to democracy, not to government. Such as the constitution and an idependent and unbiased judiciary to interpret it, in other words the rule of law.

[Calax]

That's right, the US was founded on the principle of opposition to all forms of fascism, before fascism was even defined.

 

Edit:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

James Madison

 

He just destroys all utopias right there.

Isn't Facism another word for the evolved word Tyranny? (I say evolved because it meant something VERY different back in Roman times).

 

Unless of course, you think that the US was founded pre-dark ages...

[Wrath of Dagon]

No, fascism is not another word for tyranny, look it up on wikipedia.

[Raithe]

To go with the snarky quote rather then intelligent discourse..

 

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million people are wiser than one person. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one person is wiser than a million people. Let's play that over again, too.

Who decides?"

 

 

And the other part of the balance to use Sun Tzu:

 

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product... A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight ; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."

[Gfted1]

Isn't Facism another word for the evolved word Tyranny? (I say evolved because it meant something VERY different back in Roman times).

 

Unless of course, you think that the US was founded pre-dark ages...

 

Wow, are you seriously nitpicking "before fascism was even defined"?

 

Anyway, WoD is right, as its first known use was in 1921.

[Calax]

In classical politics, a tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos) is one who illegally seizes and controls a governmental power in a polis. These tyrants were a group of individuals who took over many Greek poleis during the uprising of the middle classes in the sixth and seventh centuries BC, ousting the aristocratic governments.

 

Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others". [1]

 

In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls. The Greek term carried no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and Classical periods and began to acquire such only during the Hellenistic period.

 

During the sixth and seventh centuries BC, tyranny was often looked upon as an intermediate stage between narrow oligarchy and more democratic forms of polity. However, in the late fifth and fourth centuries, a new kind of tyrant, the military dictator arose, specifically in Sicily.

 

Paying particular attention to the second and third paragraphs.

 

As to your quote and followings, the founders were coming out of a war where they thought they were under the thumb of the british king without any form of recourse. And to say that they were fighting facism before it was even defined is pathetic with that given the quote is so nebulously stated they're referring to both tyranny and Facism and any other form of government that didn't have a representation of the people (Soviet Communism can fit here too).

 

And so you know what you're talking about beyond what is commonly stated and cliched

 

Fascism rejects the concepts of egalitarianism, materialism, and rationalism in favour of action, discipline, hierarchy, spirit, and will.[19] They oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements.[20] Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.[21] They believe that economic classes are not capable of properly governing a nation, and that a merit-based elite of experienced military persons must rule through regimenting a nation's forces of production and securing the nation's independence.[22] Fascism perceives conservatism as partly valuable for its support of order in society but disagrees with its typical opposition to change and modernization.[23] Fascism presents itself as a solution to the perceived benefits and disadvantages of conservatism by advocating state-controlled modernization that promotes orderly change while resisting the dangers to order in society of pluralism and independent initiative.[23]

[213374U]

That's right, the US was founded on the principle of opposition to all forms of fascism, before fascism was even defined.

I'm not sure if this was a direct response to Monte's (tongue-in-cheek I think) remark about the 2nd Amendment but, do you really think that small arms protect you from fascism? Really?

 

Other than that, I agree for the most part. However, the founding fathers didn't imagine a scenario where the people didn't care about, or in fact actually wanted, a fascist US.

 

 

Isn't Facism another word for the evolved word Tyranny? (I say evolved because it meant something VERY different back in Roman times).

No, at its core it's something much more perverse. Fascism represents the desire to turn the state into a machine whose essential function is to destroy ideological opposition of any sort, to the state itself. The complete lack of acceptance of the right for different opinions to exist, and the willingness -preference, in fact- to use force to remove ideological opponents is the true mark of a fascist. In this sense, military discipline and cults of personality are useful, but ultimately accessory.

 

With no ideological alternatives available, it's expected that people will simply succumb to groupthink and propaganda and adhere to the political orthodoxy, something that is facilitated by making sure that any relevant historical, cultural and ethnic symbols that people can identify with are hijacked, reinterpreted or rewritten for use by the Party, the Movement or what have you - unless they have been outright erased.

 

Fascism is, in short, absolute intolerance and the annihilation of the individual made political philosophy. Mussolini pretty much sums it up:

Edited February 9, 2011 by 213374U

[Guest The Architect]

I agree with this idea at the moment, on the basis that I'd get more of a taste of the green action, but if I were filthy rich, then this idea could go **** itself in the ass with a strap-on.

[Wrath of Dagon]

And to say that they were fighting facism before it was even defined is pathetic with that given the quote is so nebulously stated they're referring to both tyranny and Facism and any other form of government

I didn't say they were actually fighting fascism, and that's why I said "all forms of fascism".

that didn't have a representation of the people (Soviet Communism can fit here too).

precisely. In general I think you just misunderstood my meaning.

 

That's right, the US was founded on the principle of opposition to all forms of fascism, before fascism was even defined.

I'm not sure if this was a direct response to Monte's (tongue-in-cheek I think) remark about the 2nd Amendment but, do you really think that small arms protect you from fascism? Really?

Yes it was, and yes it can, among other things.

 

P.S. Soviet Communism did have a representation of the people... you draw your own conclusions

If you think that was actually representative, then lol.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not sure if this was a direct response to Monte's (tongue-in-cheek I think) remark about the 2nd Amendment but, do you really think that small arms protect you from fascism? Really?

 

I was completely serious.

[Walsingham]

Fascists ****ing LOVE guns. And fighting. I don't see how owning a gun and chllenging them to a fight is going to deter them.

[Enoch]

I'm not sure if this was a direct response to Monte's (tongue-in-cheek I think) remark about the 2nd Amendment but, do you really think that small arms protect you from fascism? Really?

 

I was completely serious.

The historical roots of the American 2nd Amendment are in the English Civil War and the surrounding century of Stuart rule. The royalists made many efforts to disarm the local militia barracks and batteries in areas where support for their political opponents was strong.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fascists ****ing LOVE guns. And fighting. I don't see how owning a gun and chllenging them to a fight is going to deter them.

They don't love them in the hands of their enemies, because they can't get away with assaulting them. I posted an article a while ago about Nicaraguan goverenment thugs beating up opposition. That can't happen in the US. Edit: Yes, they love fighting, but only if their victim is a lot weaker than them, like all bullies.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[WDeranged]

I can see an armed populace being a deterrent to a potential fascist but ultimately the global ruling class won that arms race a long time ago, when are gun shops going to start stocking apache helicopters and stealth bombers?..though that would indeed be cool

[Walsingham]

Fascists ****ing LOVE guns. And fighting. I don't see how owning a gun and chllenging them to a fight is going to deter them.

They don't love them in the hands of their enemies, because they can't get away with assaulting them. I posted an article a while ago about Nicaraguan goverenment thugs beating up opposition. That can't happen in the US. Edit: Yes, they love fighting, but only if their victim is a lot weaker than them, like all bullies.

 

You're confusing rhetoric and science here. Fascist bully boys may fear guns, but they fear their own heirarchy more. And their heirarchy feeds on and is legitimised by war and fighting. Or did you think fascist militias were some sort of elaborate bluff?

 

Viz. the shooting of Horst Wessel didn't turn anyone off Nazism. They turned him into a goddamn poster child.

 

In the evening of 14 January 1930, Wessel answered a knock on his door, and was shot in the face by an assailant who then fled the scene. Wessel lingered in hospital until he died on 23 February. Albrecht H

[Junai]

But I'm more interesting in the Venus project, it's just mainly being promoted through the Zeitgeist.

Utopian nonsense imho.. Create a perfect techno-society so noone would have to work? Lolz.. The techno-"crutch" is already about to create a generation of obese and phlegmatic dimwits. The dayjob is what keeps most of the people on this planet going. For a lot of people, nothing else makes any sense. Half the planet would go through a deep existential crisis if this Venus-project happened. There's simply not enough psychologists and zen-masters around to reorient the fragile weltanschauung of billions of people before they went on a frothing rampage to destroy everything we hold dear and "believe" in..

Take away people's illusions and they go nuts. Those who are ready to escape the samsaric illusion are few. One person at the time.. slooooowly..

 

J.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Junai

[Rosbjerg]

Utopian nonsense imho.. Create a perfect techno-society so noone would have to work? Lolz.. The techno-"crutch" is already about to create a generation of obese and phlegmatic dimwits. The dayjob is what keeps most of the people on this planet going. For a lot of people, nothing else makes any sense. Half the planet would go through a deep existential crisis if this Venus-project happened. There's simply not enough psychologists and zen-masters around to reorient the fragile weltanschauung of billions of people before they went on a frothing rampage to destroy everything we hold dear and "believe" in..

Take away people's illusions and they go nuts. Those who are ready to escape the samsaric illusion are few. One person at the time.. slooooowly..

 

J.

 

They often state that dumping people into a VP world would cause insanity, depression and obesity.. Simply because our current system is tailored towards scarcity and people hoard to avoid it, thus putting us into a world of free food and resources means that we would go nuts.. The idea is to arrive at such a world, transitioning and going one step at a time. The idea also advocates that no laws should exist in a Resource based economy, but as you can imagine - people today would not fare well in a lawless society..

 

The argument goes that human behaviour is learned behaviour and as such any "utopia" is achievable with the right mindset.. I mean, imagine dumping a peasant from the 16. century in to today's world - he would need some serious readjustment as well.

 

Utopian nonsense imho..

 

So was democracy a few hundred years ago.. and apparently still is in some places.

[Guest The Architect]

The techno-"crutch" is already about to create a generation of obese and phlegmatic dimwits. The dayjob is what keeps most of the people on this planet going.

 

Then why is it that so many people complain about their jobs? Why is it that so many people want to win the lottery so they can retire early? Of course jobs keep most of the people on this planet going, because their income relies on it. You say that in a perfect technological society where we wouldn't have to work, a lot of people would go through an existential crisis, but why is that so? Because it would be harder for them to get away from their families? There are studies which show that mothers who work part-time usually cope with the early stages of motherhood better than those who don't, I can see how work provides a good escape from domestic life for some, but if you think that society in general would become a bunch of lazy, good for nothing resource hogs, then what does that say about humanity, or rather, your outlook towards people? And I thought I was negative.

[Rosbjerg]

looks like computers are getting good at Jeopardy too.. One of the human adversaries humorously remarked at the end of segment 2, "I for one welcome our new computer overlords"..

 

Watson.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Meh, I could beat the computer if I was allowed to use Google.

[Gfted1]

The computer is not connected to the internet at all, its only allowed to use its on-board knowledge. The brilliant thing behind it is the fact that it is given the question in the same form the humans are and must figure out the question, buzz in using a mehanical arm, and answer in the proper format. The rules are exactly the same for Watson as they are for the humans.