Politics 2017 part 4

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, 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 extremist

Robespierre

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism

So is Lenin an extremist then? Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

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

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'unreasonable fear'

 

HAH, 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 extremist

 

Robespierre

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism

 

So is Lenin an extremist then?

 

Kinda, I feel much more negatively about Stalin. I am not sure if there was slavery in Russia during Tzar ruling. But as I already stated, I don't mind that Stalin get rid of ruling 'class' aka aristocracy. My problem with his that he killed anyone who was not part of his revolution

[Ben No.3]

 

Are people in power that dumb in the US?

Yes. Remember the election that just happened?

 

OK, I dont know much about him but i would not call ending slavery and feudal system extremism

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

 

 

 

 

See, even if I told you I had, it would be useless ^^

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?

[Bartimaeus]

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

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.

[Ben No.3]

 

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

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...

[Ben No.3]

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.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

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.

No but I for sure support decentralization of power

Edited March 3, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

You'd have to be more specific about which measures you think they're ramping up for me to answer that. If you're talking about the travel ban, it's only a temporary measure until they can improve scrutiny of visitors, which isn't sufficient as we saw in the San Bernardino attack.

 

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170

 

The wife was admitted in spite of terrorist links.

 

This is an example of ramping up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/03/01/police-chiefs-immigration-task-force-outlines-opposition-to-trump-policy/?utm_term=.7fcfef384afa

This is primarily about illegal immigration, not terrorism, no? Btw, do you believe that foreign criminals should not be deported?

 

 

The administration is working very hard to tie the two together. I think foreign criminals deserve the rights of due process, and I tend to side with the police chiefs on this specific scenario.

 

As for the wife, I think you are giving the government a tremendous amount of power over the rights of an American citizen. Does he not have the right to marry who he wants and have her live in his country? How long do you plan on denying her entry based on those links? How many real families are you willing to break up in order to prevent one of these situations from happening again?

 

Well, OK then, let's let foreigners with terrorist links in, we wouldn't want to keep terrorist families apart. I just wish you guys would secede already and stop putting the rest of us at risk. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/03/san-franciscos-withdrawal-from-national-terror-intelligence-network-hikes-risks-officials-say.html

 

And why do criminals who have no right to be here in the first place have due process rights not be deported?

Edited March 3, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Malcador]

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

 

At least my recollection of him being a murderous fellow was somewhat accurate.

[Ben No.3]

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?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

He was pretty much the Stalin of the French Revolution and toppling the government and executing the previous rulers is fairly extreme.

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

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

 

At least my recollection of him being a murderous fellow was somewhat accurate.

 

Seems like scumbag, I agree

[Wrath of Dagon]

Heh, Robespierre. Democracy isn't really compatible with the government being able to declare anyone an enemy of the people and cutting his head off.

[Ben No.3]

 

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.

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?

[Chilloutman]

 

 

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.

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?

 

Well that is why I am against globalisation. Its massive centralisation of power. If you don't like to live in Germany where majority feels that way you still can go somewhere else where majority thinks same as you. I am not sure where you are heading with this?

[Ben No.3]

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...

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Chilloutman]

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.

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?

[Ben No.3]

 

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.

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

[Ben No.3]

Heh, Robespierre. Democracy isn't really compatible with the government being able to declare anyone an enemy of the people and cutting his head off.

If the majority says so, why not?

 

Again, extreme example to give you an idea of the notion...

[Chilloutman]

 

 

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.

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

 

Thats why there are constitutions ya know? And I don't think I get a notion. You don't present any alternative and historically we have evidence its best working system so far. And that is why nationalism have its meaning. You then don't end up in country which have relatively big groups with vastly opposing ideas

[Ben No.3]

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.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Hurlshort]

The primary purpose behind the judicial branch is to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

[Chilloutman]

Not know much about it, I already pointed out that you can move out to place which suits you better. I am not saying that you should break up country you live in to suit your views (especially if you are clearly a minority)

Edited March 3, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Ben No.3]

Not know much about it, I already pointed out that you can move out to place which suits you better. I am not saying that you should break up country you live in to suit your views (especially if you are clearly a minority)

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

[Chilloutman]

how is it related to what we were talking about?