NationStates Jolt Archive

Democracy has been used to justify restricting the freedom of others. There is nothing inherently fascist about the idea of democracy, it can only be seen in practice. One trait that makes democracy such a desirable system is that it facilitates the fundemental principle of choice.If one does not favor a particular candidate, there are several more who would quite enjoy that vote. That process allows for a higher degree of political freedom, the problem arise when the majoritism reigns the political world. Freedom of movement, immigration, has been restricted because of the will of the majority. Freedom of speech has been restricted because of the will of the majority.

That is tyranny of the majority, that is the result of the purest form of the concept. That is what occurs when the majority is not kept in check and is total reign of the government. The voice of the minorty soon becomes supressed and certain potent steps are taken to silence them, for example the so-called 'Nuclear Option'. Although it will undoubtedly be abused for partisan purposes, it should not be stripped from the minority. In this state of affairs I have often heard contituents and others call for the minority to conform to their views, why? For the simple reason that their ideology is the most widespread and has contains the most practitioners.

What makes this far worse is that the United States is a republic. In theory a the republican government is supposed to serve as a reflection of the views of the people. In practice, this is quite often not the case. The parties act in their own interests and majoritism once again raises its head. The State has become more centralized over the years because of the will of the majority. Vast powers have been granted to government officials. This has given birth to a new breed of fascism, that of a fascist democracy.

War, theft, murder, and oppression have been sanctioned merely because that was the whim of the many. If it were a dictatorship, these same events would not appear to possess the justification because it was the whim of the elite. People place the blame for this outrage soley on the government. The means that are used to remedy this are to replace one corrupt regime with another. Refer to quote at the heading, "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven." That is not the solution to end fascist democracy. That only gives it more new blood from which it can thrive. The people themselves are also to blame for their misery. They have given the State more jurisdiction over their lives and have failed to keep the State in check. If the State is kept in order and its powers restricted, the majority will not have the ability to restrict the freedoms of others using the government. It would be far far difficult to do so.

Freedom should never be restricted only because the majority wills it. I am not a proponent of monarchy or any other restricted system, I am only trying to show the flaws of the current one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like your opinions and suggestions.

Well, the united states works as a republic should because it is

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

As well, excessive rights must be pruned. Nations are formed for the defense and protection of the individuals within the nation. In order to do this, a nation must give itself the power to act towards this defense, even at the cost of liberty. Ultimately like all things we must give up something to get something better.

The point was that the democratic system can produce the same outcomes as a dictatorship.

Hitler was elected, was he not? Also take a look at Zimbabwe.

The point was that the democratic system can produce the same outcomes as a dictatorship.

Even democracy can be flawed for manipulation. Hitler's election to power would be one example. Many dictators have exploited elections to justify their time in power, like the Phillipines' Marcos and Zimbabwe's Mugabe.

Hitler was elected, was he not? Also take a look at Zimbabwe.

(Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. One minute before my post was uploaded...)

Even democracy can be flawed for manipulation. Hitler's election to power would be one example. Many dictators have exploited elections to justify their time in power, like the Phillipines' Marcos and Zimbabwe's Mugabe.
This post went along with a discussion I had with a few others. It concerned the state of the nation. I wrote this partially as a warning for people to remain skeptical of the government and the politicians because some people believe that since we are a republic an action is more justified.

This post went along with a discussion I had with a few others. It concerned the state of the nation. I wrote this partially as a warning for people to remain skeptical of the government and the politicians because some people believe that since we are a republic an action is more justified.

Is there not something in the decleration of Independance the Americans have some moral obligation to overthrow their opresive regeme?

Is there not something in the decleration of Independance the Americans have some moral obligation to overthrow their opresive regeme?
Like that piece of paper does us any good when the general populace is limited to pea shooters and bows. We've given our freedoms and the ability to overthrow an oppressive regime away...gladly in some instances.

Isn't the brainwashing of the public a wonderful thing? :headbang:

Like that piece of paper does us any good when the general populace is limited to pea shooters and bows. We've given our freedoms and the ability to overthrow an oppressive regime away...gladly in some instances.
Unless you're sporting a SAM installation, a few Abrams Tanks and Apache Helicopters in your yard, you're not going to overthrow the US Government anyways...

Look, I do not really know why so many people are so paranoid about the American government anyway. Our country is currently stable, our government is relatively weak and does not raise very high taxes, we are filthy rich(richer than most other nations) Japan is one of the few countries that is richer(if not the only) and their government interferes with the economy more than ours does(through subsidies to improve a struggling industry and tariffs). We are not in any great danger, Hitler only came into power in Germany because they were in some serious crap, and despite his evil and the cost in lives Germany became a great power during the period due to his efforts(until it was destroyed for biting off more than it could chew). America is just fine and the 2nd amendment would not do anything to stop a dictator anyway(the same weapons used to fight a dictator could also form a personal army).

Look, I do not really know why so many people are so paranoid about the American government anyway. Our country is currently stable, our government is relatively weak and does not raise very high taxes, we are filthy rich(richer than most other nations)
People are paranoid about the government because it has the power to interfere ones personal life and restrict freedoms, even when it does not concern law and order. Even though the nation is wealthy, that does not mean that one should not be skeptical.

Japan is one of the few countries that is richer(if not the only) and their government interferes with the economy more than ours does(through subsidies to improve a struggling industry and tariffs).
The government has the ability to do those things, that shows that we are at their mercy when it should be the reverse.

America is just fine and the 2nd amendment would not do anything to stop a dictator anyway(the same weapons used to fight a dictator could also form a personal army).
If the people were armed and organized, i.e. militias, it would be more difficult for the state to restrain them. It would not mean it would be an equal match, it would only be a more fair one.

People are paranoid about the government because it has the power to interfere ones personal life and restrict freedoms, even when it does not concern law and order. Even though the nation is wealthy, that does not mean that one should not be skeptical.

The government has the ability to do those things, that shows that we are at their mercy when it should be the reverse.

If the people were armed and organized, i.e. militias, it would be more difficult for the state to restrain them. It would not mean it would be an equal match, it would only be a more fair one.

Scepticism is a waste of time. If we only organized the government could not oppose us. The simple fact is that we live in a democracy(or republic), the majority would probably rule.

Also, we are meant to be at the mercy of the government and the government is meant to be at our mercy. Currently that has some truth, we are the majority and if we decided to change every representative at the next election we could do so.

If the people were armed, that would also apply for those who would actively undermine the government and democracy. The battle would never be fair, no dictator would allow it to be a fair fight(Hitler was an elected leader). The simple fact is that more gun freedom would give more power to anti-government militias(the crazy ones) as well as to the wanna-be dictators because the Nazis before they were elected into power already had their own personal army, the spread of power would only make it easier for dangerous forces to have the power to disrupt our government and way of life and eventually would end up with the government taking a harder stance on all rights and becoming the fascist government that you fear.

Scepticism is a waste of time. If we only organized the government could not oppose us. The simple fact is that we live in a democracy(or republic), the majority would probably rule.
Skepticism keeps one from becoming too ideological. It is not so much majority rule as it is when it turns into a tyranny by majority that irks me.

Also, we are meant to be at the mercy of the government and the government is meant to be at our mercy. Currently that has some truth, we are the majority and if we decided to change every representative at the next election we could do so.
Even so, the most righteous person, if given that much power, can soon become corrupt. However, I see your point. I think the government should fear the people so that they will not harm them.

If the people were armed, that would also apply for those who would actively undermine the government and democracy. The battle would never be fair, no dictator would allow it to be a fair fight(Hitler was an elected leader). The simple fact is that more gun freedom would give more power to anti-government militias(the crazy ones)
I hope you don't think that all anarchists are violent. I was making the point that if the people were armed, the government would have a more difficult time controlling them.

as well as to the wanna-be dictators because the Nazis before they were elected into power already had their own personal army, the spread of power would only make it easier for dangerous forces to have the power to disrupt our government and way of life and eventually would end up with the government taking a harder stance on all rights and becoming the fascist government that you fear.
The governmenr already disrupts our lives. The majority have the power to restrict freedoms simply because they are the many, that'smy biggest complaint. If a dictator were to come to power, it would probabyl be someone who was of high ranking in the military.

Democracy is tyranny by majority, the people decide how they think that society should work.

Well, the government fears us only as much as we make them fear us. The fact is that most people do not really feel very threatened by the government and therefore do not threaten the government.

The government does not do much to control people, bureaucracy and red-tape are bigger threats to our freedom than active oppression. Also I never said that anarchists were all evil, I only said that some people are crazy and hate the government(I do not care whether they are anarchists, or statists).

I have not heard very many people other than the libertarians on the boards complain about the government interfering with their lives. Besides, you simply are complaining about democracy, there is no better system than democracy, most of the other systems have been tried and have failed.

The military is not going to do a thing. Our military is mostly there as volunteers to defend democracy, they are comprised of the people that they exist to protect and would not allow any dictator to gain power unless he already had enough power to exert great control over our entire society(something that could happen in any system that experiences great instability)

By the way, you are a libertarian aren't you?

Well, the government fears us only as much as we make them fear us. The fact is that most people do not really feel very threatened by the government and therefore do not threaten the government.
I am only curious if they do not fear us enough.

The government does not do much to control people, bureaucracy and red-tape are bigger threats to our freedom than active oppression. Also I never said that anarchists were all evil, I only said that some people are crazy and hate the government(I do not care whether they are anarchists, or statists).The government does quite a bit to control us, in my opinion. I suppose the perception varies, however.

I have not heard very many people other than the libertarians on the boards complain about the government interfering with their lives. Besides, you simply are complaining about democracy, there is no better system than democracy, most of the other systems have been tried and have failed.
That I understand and that is my problem. It facilitates choice, but the majority can drown the opinion of the minority.

The military is not going to do a thing. Our military is mostly there as volunteers to defend democracy, they are comprised of the people that they exist to protect and would not allow any dictator to gain power unless he already had enough power to exert great control over our entire society(something that could happen in any system that experiences great instability)
The military is controlled by the government. They are sent where they are told and do what they are told. The military is a hand of the government, a tool.

By the way, you are a libertarian aren't you?
I prefer Old Whig to libertarian. Although, I often subscribe to anarcho-capitalism, though I know it is inpractical.

Hitler wasnt exactly elected fairly...go read up on some history, youll find out his political cronies terrorized other political groups and votes...that in a sense isnt a true democratic election. The SA groups were the main force for attacking rivils pre-hitler

Hitler wasnt exactly elected fairly...go read up on some history, youll find out his political cronies terrorized other political groups and votes...that in a sense isnt a true democratic election. The SA groups were the main force for attacking rivils pre-hitler

Right, so Hitler used his own private military. I actually made mention of a loosening of gun-laws making private militaries something that could be a more common occurance in politics. I even mentioned the Nazis having a private military group in one of my posts. In that post I was attacking the loosening of gun laws. After all an efficient private army is more intimidating than one that is behind the times, and ultimately private armies are an awesome way to destroy democracy, so allowing people to privately own military grade weapons and form their own militias despite purpose could be used to threaten national security.

Like that piece of paper does us any good when the general populace is limited to pea shooters and bows. We've given our freedoms and the ability to overthrow an oppressive regime away...gladly in some instances.

Isn't the brainwashing of the public a wonderful thing? :headbang:

Umm, the USA is a democracy. That means you don't need guns to overthrow the government. If you don't have the numbers to win an election, chances are you don't have the numbers to overthrow the government anyway.

Umm, the USA is a democracy. That means you don't need guns to overthrow the government. If you don't have the numbers to win an election, chances are you don't have the numbers to overthrow the government anyway.

Ha, the USA is not a democracy. We are a republic. We elect officals (Congress) to do our thinking and our voting for us.

Unless you're sporting a SAM installation, a few Abrams Tanks and Apache Helicopters in your yard, you're not going to overthrow the US Government anyways...

Don't underestimate the value of IEDs and good battle rifles. They can be quite effective, even when one is fighting against the world's most high-tech army.

The military is controlled by the government. They are sent where they are told and do what they are told. The military is a hand of the government, a tool.


True, but we do question illegal orders. We are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the current fairly elected Pres- , well, the President.

Don't underestimate the value of IEDs and good battle rifles. They can be quite effective, even when one is fighting against the world's most high-tech army.
I wonder why the Iraqis aren't winning then...

EDIT: And what is an IED? Oh, and AK74s constitute a "good enough" rifle in my book. Not that much worse than any US rifle. It shoots a bullet at something afterall...

Ha, the USA is not a democracy. We are a republic. We elect officals (Congress) to do our thinking and our voting for us.

But the problem with an ideal 'proportinal' democracy and all that would become unmanageable no?

I think that parliamentary systems are quite good.

Look, if there is a situation where the U.S. government is going to defy the popular beliefs of a community and impose a dictatorship, then it is probably clear that the system has fallen to pieces by that time anyway. I doubt that in such a situation it would really matter what laws we did have because when the system falls to pieces, the nation usually has massive problems(even to the point where a dictatorship would become popular). I really do not see the U.S. government as being a great threat(our government is freedom loving, it is sort of weak and elected). I think it is weird that our government offers more freedom and less taxes than many of the governments of Europe but there seem to be many Americans still afraid of it.

I think it is weird that our government offers more freedom and less taxes than many of the governments of Europe but there seem to be many Americans still afraid of it.
Maybe it's because those people know better than to think that...
I won't fight about taxes, only citing that German Business taxes are lower than they are in the US, but in terms of freedoms, I disagree.
Things like Gay Marriage or Abortion are almost non-issues in many EU nations. Gun Laws? Granted, but I won't go into why I think it's a good thing to restrict that particular freedom.
Oh, and can't Americans only drink once they're 21?

And also, although personal tax rate are higher, better public services create a better quality of life.

Our country is currently stable, our government is relatively weak and does not raise very high taxes, we are filthy rich(richer than most other nations) Japan is one of the few countries that is richer(if not the only)

Switzerland's GDP per Capita is higher, while tax duties are lower ;-)

Maybe it's because those people know better than to think that...
I won't fight about taxes, only citing that German Business taxes are lower than they are in the US, but in terms of freedoms, I disagree.
Things like Gay Marriage or Abortion are almost non-issues in many EU nations. Gun Laws? Granted, but I won't go into why I think it's a good thing to restrict that particular freedom.
Oh, and can't Americans only drink once they're 21?

Well, a few european governments have restrictions on what their people may believe and how they may express themselves. France does not allow people to have anything religious showing on government property, this is causing problems with the muslim population in the country. Germany restricts freedom to believe what you want and does not allow certain cults and I think even has a problem with nazis(which are bad but in the U.S. people are free to be nazis). Finally the restriction of certain rights is popular in this nation and is not the fault of the government itself. Finally, I do know that higher taxes also comes with some benefits but ultimately to a mind that already distrusts the government, those higher taxes come as an infringement upon the right to do with your money as you please.

Switzerland's GDP per Capita is higher, while tax duties are lower ;-)

Thanks, I did not know about switzerland's economic power. I only knew about Japan being so strong through its government favoring business with certain favors.

-snip-
I still prefer my European freedoms to your American freedoms... ;)

There are very good reasons too for why the French and German governments are restricting some freedoms.

The French have millions and millions of immigrants in their countries that have problems to integrate. Why? Because they like to keep to themselves, and so do the French. And they end up teaching that to their kids. So at least in school, instead of seeing a Muslim or a Jew, you see only a kid. And if that is not going to at least help facilitating integration, then I don't know what is.

As for the Neonazis...I don't mind if they don't get to walk about inciting hatred. But there isn't even a law like that. Unless a protest is violent, or there is an intention to be violent, it will be allowed. Only recently a law has been passed that can restrict any protests at certain landmarks, to be decided by the Government on a case by case basis. The reason? The Holocaust Memorial was being opened, and if the Nazis want to protest, then at least not there.
The NPD on the other hand is a constitutional matter. Our constitution says that we are a democratic country and it provides grounds for outlawing explicitly antidemocratic political organisations. Whether the NPD qualifies is yet to be seen.

And some good reading:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

Well, a few european governments have restrictions on what their people may believe and how they may express themselves. France does not allow people to have anything religious showing on government property, this is causing problems with the muslim population in the country.Yeah, but that's more because some radicals refuse to accept it. After some extremists kidnapped French citizens to get that revoked, the majority of muslims publicly announced that they were going to accept it.
Germany restricts freedom to believe what you want and does not allow certain cults and I think even has a problem with nazis(which are bad but in the U.S. people are free to be nazis). You're free to be a Nazi in Germany too, you're just not allowed to march past the Holocaust memorial, display unconstitutional insignia out of historical context, or trivialize the holocaust.

BTW to whoever said it, the USA has about 8 trillion more dollars than Japan, and is the richest government on earth by far...but back on topic, the US is a dictatorship of sorts already. the difference is we elect our dictators. the only good democracy is direct democracy, we combine republicanism and democracy which ends up as a dictatorship, hidden by the people's ability to vote.

Look, I do not really care about which country has what freedoms. I know that the U.S. has less capability to be a dictatorship than many other countries due to our democratic nature and because our government is weak compared to most other democracies(including France and Germany). I am only here to argue that there is little to fear from the U.S. government.

BTW to whoever said it, the USA has about 8 trillion more dollars than Japan


I assume you mean GDP? GDP is an ineffective way of saying how wealthy a country is. GDP per capita is higher in Switzerland (Im not sure about Japan) than the US I think. therefore it is richer.

However, America still has one of the Highest GDP per capita values in the world, and yet, many people in the US (Especially in the Midwest and some Southern States like Missippi) are still mired in abject poverty, the type which is not seen nearly so often in Western Europe.

BTW to whoever said it, the USA has about 8 trillion more dollars than Japan, and is the richest government on earth by far...but back on topic, the US is a dictatorship of sorts already. the difference is we elect our dictators. the only good democracy is direct democracy, we combine republicanism and democracy which ends up as a dictatorship, hidden by the people's ability to vote.

Japan has a greater GDP per capita than the U.S. and is the 2nd largest economy(pretty good considering the size of Japland).

The U.S. is not in truth a dictatorship, there are too many elected officials that have some control over how the government processes work. The only fact that could possibly make it a dictatorship is if we are too stupid to vote anyway.

As well, direct democracy is not exactly very practical for a nation of this size.

I know that the U.S. has less capability to be a dictatorship than many other countries due to our democratic nature and because our government is weak compared to most other democracies(including France and Germany).
There! You did it again!
Neither France nor Germany is nearly as likely to become a dictatorship than the current panic-stricken, ideological America. Nonetheless, did you read the link?

Please, everyone read the above link!

Look, I do not really care about which country has what freedoms. I know that the U.S. has less capability to be a dictatorship than many other countries due to our democratic nature and because our government is weak compared to most other democracies(including France and Germany). I am only here to argue that there is little to fear from the U.S. government.
HAHAHAHA!
Sorry, must wipe the tears out of my eyes before they reach my keyboard and short circuit the computer.
There is little to fear from the US government? Considering how willingly some Republicans were disenfranchising voters and how the current administration is treating the press, the US is taking steps towards something that would have rigged elections. Trust me, the only reason why the US has less capability to becoming a dictatorship than most countries is because there's so many that already are. Among the Western countries, only Russia or Italy might be just as highly at risk as the US.

HAHAHAHA!
Sorry, must wipe the tears out of my eyes before they reach my keyboard and short circuit the computer.
There is little to fear from the US government? Considering how willingly some Republicans were disenfranchising voters and how the current administration is treating the press, the US is taking steps towards something that would have rigged elections. Trust me, the only reason why the US has less capability to becoming a dictatorship than most countries is because there's so many that already are. Among the Western countries, only Russia or Italy might be just as highly at risk as the US.

The only thing I would say that could protect Americans from Dictatorship is most (Reasonable) American's fierce love of freedom. However, their fierce patriotisim is coupled with that, which could put them in jeapordy.

However, I dont think there is much chance of the USA becoming a dictatorship just yet. We haven't heard anything about Bush changing the constitution so he can run a third term.

Russia I can understand, they dont really know about democracy, but Italy? They must be idiots, Burlesconi is a media magnate! How could they elect him?

Slightly off topic, the only (Well, not the only thing, but the thing i hate most) thing I hate about the current government in the US is their export of fear. JFK was a freedom lover. he exported hope, in return the world loved him (well, except the Soviets). But Bush, Bush seems to export fear to the world, he is also not very Charismatic and can't express what his policies are that well, but thats not his fault.

However, I dont think there is much chance of the USA becoming a dictatorship just yet. We haven't heard anything about Bush changing the constitution so he can run a third term.Wouldn't have to be Bush. A dictatorship by a party (or both parties, if they get sick enough) isn't all that improbable. That's how things run in China and how they ran in the USSR. All you'd have to do is make sure the media sticks to heel as it does right now and keep things so that they "seem" like everythings still free, like switching the guy called president every four or eight years. And let the people vote. Just don't bother giving them real results.

Ok, I said that the governments of Germany and France are stronger than those of the US. A strong government is more capable of asserting its will and maintaining focus and in some ways has more that can be feared about it. A weak government has problems doing as such. Vodka Bob, the founder of the thread feared the U.S. government because it was strong(he seemed to be semi-libertarian), most sources that I have read have said that the U.S. government is weak compared to most other democracies.

Also, we are nowhere close to dictatorship. The U.S. government only has power as long as it is legitimate, if it loses legitimacy(we do like the fact that it is a democracy) then the people will no longer allow this to occur. Besides, the freedom of the press is not that big of an issue, sure the Neo-cons may be getting some form of power high but only paranoid conspiracy theorists actually believe that we are becoming a dictatorship.

Ok, I said that the governments of Germany and France are stronger than those of the US. A strong government is more capable of asserting its will and maintaining focus and in some ways has more that can be feared about it. A weak government has problems doing as such. Vodka Bob, the founder of the thread feared the U.S. government because it was strong(he seemed to be semi-libertarian), most sources that I have read have said that the U.S. government is weak compared to most other democracies.Please give some examples as to how Germany has a stronger democracy than the US. We can't even volontarily dissolve parliament for new elections.

Also, we are nowhere close to dictatorship. The U.S. government only has power as long as it is legitimate, if it loses legitimacy(we do like the fact that it is a democracy) then the people will no longer allow this to occur. Besides, the freedom of the press is not that big of an issue, sure the Neo-cons may be getting some form of power high but only paranoid conspiracy theorists actually believe that we are becoming a dictatorship.The legitimacy is supplied how? Through elections. If those elections were rigged and no one noticed, who would consider them illegitimate? Let me ask you this, if the elections got manipulated the way they did in Bush's first election, would anyone care? No! We reelected the bastard!
The way the Shrubbery treats the press nowadays is reminiscent of the cold war era. Say anything anti-governmental and you're gonna have a tough time getting any more information from government sources. Currently, the press is pretty much on its knees for information. That situation could get a lot worse.
It's not guaranteed that the US will be a dictatorship, but it most certainly is close to becoming one.

Wouldn't have to be Bush. A dictatorship by a party (or both parties, if they get sick enough) isn't all that improbable. That's how things run in China and how they ran in the USSR. All you'd have to do is make sure the media sticks to heel as it does right now and keep things so that they "seem" like everythings still free, like switching the guy called president every four or eight years. And let the people vote. Just don't bother giving them real results.

That is actually a VERY, VERY scary thought.

However, there are still liberal media outlets in the US, and what about foreign news agencies, they'd sense something's amiss.

And the USA would seriously freak their people out if they weren't allowed to read foreign newspapers etc.

Wouldn't have to be Bush. A dictatorship by a party (or both parties, if they get sick enough) isn't all that improbable. That's how things run in China and how they ran in the USSR. All you'd have to do is make sure the media sticks to heel as it does right now and keep things so that they "seem" like everythings still free, like switching the guy called president every four or eight years. And let the people vote. Just don't bother giving them real results.

I do not think that what you are talking about is too likely to happen in America. Certainly it is possible, but the only thing keeping a 3rd party out of power is the fact that the 2 we do have do not piss off the average voter too much. Really, if we are going to argue the idea that America is secretly a dictatorship why not argue that the world is in the contol of an powerful group that includes Bill Gates, Hitler's brain, the ghost of Lenin, and the Pope.

Yes, rationalisim is the key here people.

However, the thing about America is that thye have almost no third party presence.

In the Uk its like this:

Labour: 396
Conservatives:198
Liberal Democrats:62
Others (BNP,UKIP, greens, SNP, independents etc.): 30

I do not think that what you are talking about is too likely to happen in America. Certainly it is possible, but the only thing keeping a 3rd party out of power is the fact that the 2 we do have do not piss off the average voter too much. Really, if we are going to argue the idea that America is secretly a dictatorship why not argue that the world is in the contol of an powerful group that includes Bill Gates, Hitler's brain, the ghost of Lenin, and the Pope.
I'm not saying that the US *is* such a dictatorship. It just might be one some day.
In order to become such a dictatorship, the US would need to make sure it doesn't piss off the voters. To be honest, there's plenty of people that don't care about content in politics as long as its their chosen party. And I mean, considering that people applaud things that Faux News brings out and call CNN liberal trash, would they believe CNN if it said something like this had happened?

Please give some examples as to how Germany has a stronger democracy than the US. We can't even volontarily dissolve parliament for new elections.


The U.S. has the Madisonian system of checks and balances which requires a lot of effort to get anything passed. I would be able to help you more if I still had that book on comparative politics but I returned it after I was done. The book clearly stated that Germany and France had a stronger government than the US, but I was not studying Germany that closely(I did not need to) so I can not remember how its government was stronger, I do know that the reason why France's government is stronger is because of the great power that a French president has.

That is actually a VERY, VERY scary thought.

However, there are still liberal media outlets in the US, and what about foreign news agencies, they'd sense something's amiss.

And the USA would seriously freak their people out if they weren't allowed to read foreign newspapers etc.
More than half the country was against Bush getting elected the first time round. And yet, nothing happened to prevent him from taking office. Take a look at what's happening with Guantanamo bay: Faux News shows suits eating a class A dinner from the prison and half the country applauds. Those same people call whatever CNN brings liberal bullshit. I'm rather pessimistic on how things would be if CNN claims that the government is rigging elections and Faux says everything's alright whom some people would believe more just because it makes them feel better.
If something like I said were to be pulled off, who would really try and stop it?

The U.S. has the Madisonian system of checks and balances which requires a lot of effort to get anything passed.
The checks and balances don't work if everything is in the hands of one party. Even in the bipartisan system, it was rather easy to get the Patriot Act going in the first place. All it needed was some emergency.

If everyone believes the Republican party is correct and they win overwhelmingly in every election then it is a democracy(democracy only requires that voters vote for their president). Every country could end up a dictatorship one way or another, it is just that Bush has made every liberal go nutso and claim that he is a dictator. Besides, it is likely that the political spectrum will shift once again and the democrats will come into power. Just because you disagree with a president does not mean that he is a dictator.

If everyone believes the Republican party is correct and they win overwhelmingly in every election then it is a democracy(democracy only requires that voters vote for their president). Every country could end up a dictatorship one way or another, it is just that Bush has made every liberal go nutso and claim that he is a dictator. Besides, it is likely that the political spectrum will shift once again and the democrats will come into power. Just because you disagree with a president does not mean that he is a dictator.Goodness! I'm not saying he's a dictator! He just behaves that way!
Yes, every country could end up that way, but the US is showing signs of it more than some others.
What I was saying befroe was that the Republican party could well manipulate elections in such a manner that they manage to win. Republicans have shown the desire to do so in the past, which is why I don't trust them.

Laerod, you are a conspiracy theorist or something. America has made it through worse. Besides, the election was close on Bush's 1st term and there is no proof that the election was fixed(only the beliefs of some paranoid people). Laerod, have you even studied American politics or history? Or are you just going off of a delusional hatred of Bush? Nothing that has happened is that major, heck, the Patriot Act is barely even a threat to the average citizen. I do not see any reason to be paranoid about Bush's presidency.

Unless you're sporting a SAM installation, a few Abrams Tanks and Apache Helicopters in your yard, you're not going to overthrow the US Government anyways...

if every american gun owner got together... and let's say those who own a lot of firearms gave one to each nearby neighbor who didn't... there'd be 200 million armed americans (ball park figure, of course)

i'd like to see any force in the world stop an army of 200 million bearing down on one location

then you have to consider that probably every member of the US military is kin to at least one of those 200 million... would the US military even fire a shot?

yes, it could be done.

as things stand right now, there's no way it could happen... the resistance would have to be fairly unified. most gun-owners are republicans, so such a thing would be more likely to happen with a democrat as president.

but while we piss and moan about every president, i think deep down most americans would give fight to save him from assassination, whoever is the Chief Exec. i was not a fan of clinton, but if i'd been in position to save him from a bullet, i might have tried to do it, and i caertainly would have tried to pre-empt the attack if at all possible.

What I was saying befroe was that the Republican party could well manipulate elections in such a manner that they manage to win. Republicans have shown the desire to do so in the past, which is why I don't trust them.

Every party wants to win. I would not even put it above the Democrats to do so. These are just people, and it would not surprise me if every generation of Americans has seen something go on in politics that seems unfair or even downright illegal. I think that the greater issue is that you disagree with Bush/republicans and that is why you think that they pose a threat to our democratic institutions.

Every party wants to win. I would not even put it above the Democrats to do so. These are just people, and it would not surprise me if every generation of Americans has seen something go on in politics that seems unfair or even downright illegal. I think that the greater issue is that you disagree with Bush/republicans and that is why you think that they pose a threat to our democratic institutions.

Gore tried to have Florida law overturned in 2000... and he succeeded for a while, in that the activist Florida Supreme Court did it, extending the vote-counting deadline past that which was mandated by Florida statute.

Democrats, in the last two pres elections, have been accused of

a)handing out cigarettes to homeless people to get them to vote

and

b)slashing tires on republican vote vans

so if repubs are doing their thing to sway elections (dubious), the dems are keeping up. In the end, I don't think either side can change the result of an election with such petty attempts... in 2000, it came down to a fight over Florida election law. In 2004, Bush had a clear majority and won the electoral college with relative (to 2000, anyway) ease.

yes, it could be done.

It would never need to, and if there was going to be a dictatorship, the dictator would be clever enough to make it where no one would ever get the initiative to do so. Besides, the government knows how closely tied its power is to its legitimacy, so it would either have to maintain legitimacy or crush all resistance in a manner that would keep the American people from doing anything. Besides, if the military was not going to do anything or did not have enough manpower to brutally oppress the masses, then passive resistance would work just as well(stopping the workings of the economy would be enough to overthrow the government).

Laerod, you are a conspiracy theorist or something. America has made it through worse. Besides, the election was close on Bush's 1st term and there is no proof that the election was fixed(only the beliefs of some paranoid people). Laerod, have you even studied American politics or history? Or are you just going off of a delusional hatred of Bush? Nothing that has happened is that major, heck, the Patriot Act is barely even a threat to the average citizen. I do not see any reason to be paranoid about Bush's presidency.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, then I'd say that we already live in such a world. Quit writing me off like a nutcase and consider the dangers of American democracy that I'm trying to make you aware of.
As for the fixing of the election, I believe there were manipulations (voter disenfranchisemnt and such) in Florida as well as some other areas. Florida was what won Bush the Presidency, and there was a lot pointing in the direction that what had gone on wasn't kosher. It's the fact that nothing happened afterwards to correct the situation (as far as I recall, they got themselves a method for counting votes that is just as prone to manipulation with less evidence in Florida).
I haven't "studied" American politics or history, but I've had some intensive mandatory classes at school, and my school wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
I'm trying to make you aware of how likely it is that no one would bother preventing what I said could happen from happening.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe the last election was fair and unrigged, much to my displeasure. :(

It would never need to, and if there was going to be a dictatorship, the dictator would be clever enough to make it where no one would ever get the initiative to do so. Besides, the government knows how closely tied its power is to its legitimacy, so it would either have to maintain legitimacy or crush all resistance in a manner that would keep the American people from doing anything. Besides, if the military was not going to do anything or did not have enough manpower to brutally oppress the masses, then passive resistance would work just as well(stopping the workings of the economy would be enough to overthrow the government).

yah, i'm sure it won't. we won't elect some insane hitler/stalin/mao who tries to run the nation by himself... i'm pretty sure the armed forces would stop such a person from taking over, assuming we elected him to office.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, then I'd say that we already live in such a world. Quit writing me off like a nutcase and consider the dangers of American democracy that I'm trying to make you aware of.
As for the fixing of the election, I believe there were manipulations (voter disenfranchisemnt and such) in Florida as well as some other areas. Florida was what won Bush the Presidency, and there was a lot pointing in the direction that what had gone on wasn't kosher. It's the fact that nothing happened afterwards to correct the situation (as far as I recall, they got themselves a method for counting votes that is just as prone to manipulation with less evidence in Florida).
I haven't "studied" American politics or history, but I've had some intensive mandatory classes at school, and my school wasn't exactly a walk in the park.
I'm trying to make you aware of how likely it is that no one would bother preventing what I said could happen from happening.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe the last election was fair and unrigged, much to my displeasure. :(

is it possible that all the claims made by democrats of "voter disenfranchisement" were just the whining squeals of 5-year-olds crying over the fact that they lost the baseball game and pointing fingers at everyone but themselves in explanation as to why they lost?

the phrase "voter disenfranchisement" seems fairly ambiguous. How exactly is a person kept from voting?

Every party wants to win. I would not even put it above the Democrats to do so. These are just people, and it would not surprise me if every generation of Americans has seen something go on in politics that seems unfair or even downright illegal. I think that the greater issue is that you disagree with Bush/republicans and that is why you think that they pose a threat to our democratic institutions.
Every party wants to win, of course, but America is so damn polarized that it's beginning to feel like they want to do it at any price, and they most certainly wouldn't mind staying in power.

yah, i'm sure it won't. we won't elect some insane hitler/stalin/mao who tries to run the nation by himself... i'm pretty sure the armed forces would stop such a person from taking over, assuming we elected him to office.
I'm afraid they wouldn't if he or she hid it well enough and was Republican. They might do it if it was a Democrat, but only in such very extreme cases.

is it possible that all the claims made by democrats of "voter disenfranchisement" were just the whining squeals of 5-year-olds crying over the fact that they lost the baseball game and pointing fingers at everyone but themselves in explanation as to why they lost?Some of the things I listed below were discovered before the elections started and were remedied in a few cases. This was the case for some election official that discovered that her voting rights had been taken away.

the phrase "voter disenfranchisement" seems fairly ambiguous. How exactly is a person kept from voting?What I've heard was that the Republicans in charge ordered lists of people that were denied voting rights. The way these lists were compiled was so indiscriminate that people that had done nothing wrong were suddenly without voting rights. A lot of them only found out at the polling stations, because no one had intended to tell them.
There are a couple instances in which the state can legally remove your voting rights. Commiting a felony is the only one I'm sure of though.

"Fascist Democracy" is an oxymoron, unless you're determined to change accepted useage. :p

If I was a conspiracy theorist, then I'd say that we already live in such a world. Quit writing me off like a nutcase and consider the dangers of American democracy that I'm trying to make you aware of.


Ok, I am only tending to do so because you do seem to be a bit paranoid about a possibility that I doubt most people think is reasonable. I have studied American politics, and I have studied a little bit of comparative politics(as part of my education). I honestly doubt that the situation is that extreme. It really seems to me that the idea of American government being dangerous is based less on pure logic and more of a disagreement with policy and ideology.

Some of the things I listed below were discovered before the elections started and were remedied in a few cases. This was the case for some election official that discovered that her voting rights had been taken away.
What I've heard was that the Republicans in charge ordered lists of people that were denied voting rights. The way these lists were compiled was so indiscriminate that people that had done nothing wrong were suddenly without voting rights. A lot of them only found out at the polling stations, because no one had intended to tell them.

Somehow, that seems really hard to believe. People would have made a bigger deal about it if they weren't allowed to vote; it would be all over the news, and Bush would have been impeached by now.

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice"
-Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice"
-Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller

Well, we have not discovered a better system than democracy, so for now the voice of the majority is the only proof of justice.

Well, we have not discovered a better system than democracy, so for now the voice of the majority is the only proof of justice.

Correct. Like my dad once said, Democracy is a horrible system, but it's the best one out there.

Somehow, that seems really hard to believe. People would have made a bigger deal about it if they weren't allowed to vote; it would be all over the news, and Bush would have been impeached by now.
They did. No one seems to care.
Follow me for some links (http://www.failureisimpossible.com/needtoknow/votehearings.htm)

Ok, I am only tending to do so because you do seem to be a bit paranoid about a possibility that I doubt most people think is reasonable. I have studied American politics, and I have studied a little bit of comparative politics(as part of my education). I honestly doubt that the situation is that extreme. It really seems to me that the idea of American government being dangerous is based less on pure logic and more of a disagreement with policy and ideology.The arguement I'm making is that the American people wouldn't do anything at all if something like that happened, some of them would even be cheering. Like I said before, it's not guaranteed to happen, but it's possible.

Some of the things I listed below were discovered before the elections started and were remedied in a few cases. This was the case for some election official that discovered that her voting rights had been taken away.
What I've heard was that the Republicans in charge ordered lists of people that were denied voting rights. The way these lists were compiled was so indiscriminate that people that had done nothing wrong were suddenly without voting rights. A lot of them only found out at the polling stations, because no one had intended to tell them.
There are a couple instances in which the state can legally remove your voting rights. Commiting a felony is the only one I'm sure of though.

so the last election came down to Ohio, if memory serves me right (lol that sounds like the introduction to the theme ingredient on Iron Chef)

Bush won Ohio by, what, 100,000+ votes?

there would have had to have been a whole lot of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio to have affected the election. Florida wasn't that close this time, if memory serves. (lol... ALLEZ CUISINE!)

That said, it'd be nice if -- if this happened to some people -- it would stop, barring some practical reason for a person being denied such rights (like committing a felony).

so the last election came down to Ohio, if memory serves me right (lol that sounds like the introduction to the theme ingredient on Iron Chef)

Bush won Ohio by, what, 100,000+ votes?

there would have had to have been a whole lot of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio to have affected the election. Florida wasn't that close this time, if memory serves. (lol... ALLEZ CUISINE!)

That said, it'd be nice if -- if this happened to some people -- it would stop, barring some practical reason for a person being denied such rights (like committing a felony).
Here's what I had to say to that:
If it makes you feel any better, I believe the last election was fair and unrigged, much to my displeasure. :(

At the end of the day there is no right or wrong system of government only different ways of achieving the same goal. There will always be corruption and abuse of power as it is human nature that people want to be better off. Is that not why we vote for a specific party as they meet our needs best and promise us a better standard of life even if this does adversly effect other sections of the comunity?

Well, we have not discovered a better system than democracy, so for now the voice of the majority is the only proof of justice.the total democracy which the majority voice is the only proof of justice is either tiranity by majority ot anarchy.
true democracy has some limits to the democratic power for defence on human rights of the citizens (especially minorities that can't defend themselves by voting) and for co-operation with other nations.
in addition, politicians can't decide about policy only because of some surveys.
ben-gurion, one of the greatest israeli leaders said once:
"leader shouldn't give the people what they want, he should give them what they need.

Well, we have not discovered a better system than democracy, so for now the voice of the majority is the only proof of justice.
Democrac may be the most viable option, I agree. An example of this justice would be slavery. If the majority willed it just, then it was. Justice is subject to the whim of the many, which changes oh so often.
You seem to think that the people have a firm grip over the government. The situation is the reverse. If the state spouted propaganda, then there will be a massive percentage of followers. The people could be vicously lied to, but if they didn't know then it would still be seen as legitimate. A two party system can become fascist by following their own interests, it doesn't have to be one dictator or one party.

The military would follow the government, as would the police. They are extensions of the government and they will follow it into battle. A leader could easily oppress the people in a democracy because he has control over the military. Furthermore, there would be less resistence if the people were not armed. It is far easier to arrest someone who has nothing but a baseball bat than it is to arrest someone who has a shotgun. The military is a tool of the state to be used as the politician want.

Democracy is too often used to justify horrendous actions. If dictator A were to attack people Y, it would be seen as horrible and not justified by the democrac. However, if the democracy attacked people Y, it would be justified in their eyes because the majority wanted it.

At the end of the day there is no right or wrong system of government only different ways of achieving the same goal. There will always be corruption and abuse of power as it is human nature that people want to be better off. Is that not why we vote for a specific party as they meet our needs best and promise us a better standard of life even if this does adversly effect other sections of the comunity?

Well said. There always has been corruption and there always will be. I do not think that Bush is a threat to democracy, even if there was some corruption. Ultimately insanity in our system has happened since America began. I think that America will continue and maybe even continue to have some more embarassing corruption and unfairness in politics.

ben-gurion, one of the greatest israeli leaders said once:
"leader shouldn't give the people what they want, he should give them what they need.
The problem with that is that's it could be interpreted to rig elections, since whomever is the leader always thinks he knows better, such as Lenin.

The problem with that is that's it could be interpreted to rig elections, since whomever is the leader always thinks he knows better, such as Lenin.
Aye, almost any action could be allowed because of the public good.

Is there not something in the decleration of Independance the Americans have some moral obligation to overthrow their opresive regeme?

Well, would it not be safe to say that since the Republicans control both houses and the White House and now with a SCOTUS appointment being handed to them, thus they will also control the Supreme Court. That in effect the United States is rapidly approaching dictatorship status? How could it now be viewed as that when one party controls all branches of government , right down to the Supreme Court? One party controlling everything leaves no room for checks and balances, even in a democratic republic.

You seem to think that the people have a firm grip over the government. The situation is the reverse. If the state spouted propaganda, then there will be a massive percentage of followers. The people could be vicously lied to, but if they didn't know then it would still be seen as legitimate. A two party system can become fascist by following their own interests, it doesn't have to be one dictator or one party.

The military would follow the government, as would the police. They are extensions of the government and they will follow it into battle. A leader could easily oppress the people in a democracy because he has control over the military. Furthermore, there would be less resistence if the people were not armed. It is far easier to arrest someone who has nothing but a baseball bat than it is to arrest someone who has a shotgun. The military is a tool of the state to be used as the politician want.


Well, if the majority decides to follow then why would a minority of armed citizens matter? Besides, massive corruption and control of human beings could happen under any system. If the government was small we would have to worry about corporate interests hijacking the system in order to get control. People are corrupt and there is no way to eliminate corruption.

There are few systems better than the American system of government. It has lasted 200 something years, I think that it is sound. Really, no matter what happens a dictator could rise to power using the system that is put in place. That is true in every government or even the complete absence of government.

Well, would it not be safe to say that since the Republicans control both houses and the White House and now with a SCOTUS appointment being handed to them, thus they will also control the Supreme Court. That in effect the United States is rapidly approaching dictatorship status? How could it now be viewed as that when one party controls all branches of government , right down to the Supreme Court? One party controlling everything leaves no room for checks and balances, even in a democratic republic.
Exactly, with only one party in control, a democracy cannot flourish because not everyone has a voice. Democracy, are to be more accurate the republican system, prduced the partocracy that exist today.

There are few systems better than the American system of government. It has lasted 200 something years, I think that it is sound. Really, no matter what happens a dictator could rise to power using the system that is put in place. That is true in every government or even the complete absence of government.
Ah, but the point is to prevent that from happening, and the best way to do that is to get people to recognize when it might be happening. I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, the American people would fail to prevent that from happening.

Well, would it not be safe to say that since the Republicans control both houses and the White House and now with a SCOTUS appointment being handed to them, thus they will also control the Supreme Court. That in effect the United States is rapidly approaching dictatorship status? How could it now be viewed as that when one party controls all branches of government , right down to the Supreme Court? One party controlling everything leaves no room for checks and balances, even in a democratic republic.

Just wait a few years. The republican party can not remain in power forever. Besides, there is a check on the government. These people are elected, if we do not like the way that they are acting, then we can simply vote against them on the next election(yes it really is that simple).

There are few systems better than the American system of government. It has lasted 200 something years, I think that it is sound.

Any country that runs a parliamentary democracy is a better form of government. It would be near impossible to go rogue on the people with a parliamentary system. Also, 200 years is a blink of the eye for most of the world's countries.

The problem with that is that's it could be interpreted to rig elections, since whomever is the leader always thinks he knows better, such as Lenin.well, that true.
but you forgot one thing. the opposite is just bad as same. the democracy always had to find out the way between dictatorship and anarchy.

at least as israeli citizen, I know many cases which the goverment didn't listen to the street that claim for majority (sometimes in violent ways), and I thank the leaders for that. ben-gurion himself sign on diplomatic and financical threat with germany 10 years after the holocust, and order to sink weapons full ship of jewish radicals that ignore to unified with all the other militias in IDF. many don't love those actions, but the history prove them right.

Just wait a few years. The republican party can not remain in power forever. Besides, there is a check on the government. These people are elected, if we do not like the way that they are acting, then we can simply vote against them on the next election(yes it really is that simple).The point is, how would you notice if it wasn't a fair election when a lot of people and the media are ready and willing to ignore it?

Nice post Vodka Bob. Some comments.

I would take issue with the use of the word Democracy used to describe what is essentially two party parliamentarianism, where the party differences are essentially negligable on most issues, and major issue choices are not actually on the agenda at election time.

As you correctly point out freedoms are restricted in this form of government I take issue that it is the will of the majority however that causes this restriction, (regardless whether the majority are pro or anti issue X) the majority or minority views are never considered under such a system. Given that the only power available is the making of a mark on a piece of paper up to 4 years after the fact. For the very similar party A or party B.

Funnily, when A and B are consistently within 8% of each other, an election resembles nothing more, statistically, than flipping a coin a couple of times, as a means of selection.

Pretty much everything that is done by a nation state is done to benefit its ruling class using its systems of government and national institutions. Sometimes policy coincides with the will of the majority sometimes not.

If you need any pointers as to who is currently your ruling class, 1% of the population of the USA currently hold about 40% of its wealth. Leaving the other 99% to share the rest. As this disparity is increasing (regardless of party A/B) its a fair bet its them.

Just wait a few years. The republican party can not remain in power forever.

I don't know.. the Republicans have controlled the White House 20 years out of the last 28. Even when Clinton was President in his second term the Republicans still controlled both houses. Which basically neutered the President. (No Clinton pun there, lol)

Any country that runs a parliamentary democracy is a better form of government. It would be near impossible to go rogue on the people with a parliamentary system. Also, 200 years is a blink of the eye for most of the world's countries.
The problem with that in America is that people still uphold the Republican-Democrat dynamic. It would be the same two party corruption, but that would be in the short run. It may take years for other parties to gain influence and public support.

well, that true.
but you forgot one thing. the opposite is just bad as same. the democracy always had to find out the way between dictatorship and anarchy.

at least as israeli citizen, I know many cases which the goverment didn't listen to the street that claim for majority (sometimes in violent ways), and I thank the leaders for that. ben-gurion himself sign on diplomatic and financical threat with germany 10 years after the holocust, and order to sink weapons full ship of jewish radicals that ignore to unified with all the other militias in IDF. many don't love those actions, but the history prove them right.
As a German citizen, I can only cite too many cases in which the government did what it thought the citizens needed, and it ended in genocide.
But you're right. Democracy is a balancing act.

Ah, but the point is to prevent that from happening, and the best way to do that is to get people to recognize when it might be happening. I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, the American people would fail to prevent that from happening.

Well, I doubt that we could force people to care. I think that the American view is that politics does not matter so long as the politicians do not get in my way.

As a German citizen, I can only cite too many cases in which the government did what it thought the citizens needed, and it ended in genocide.
But you're right. Democracy is a balancing act.
so, I guess we cleared the point.

There are few systems better than the American system of government. It has lasted 200 something years, I think that it is sound. Really, no matter what happens a dictator could rise to power using the system that is put in place. That is true in every government or even the complete absence of government.
I wasn't talking so much about dictatorships as I was that democracy is not as ideal as people believe to be. Two different systems can produce the same effects.

Even democracy can be flawed for manipulation. Hitler's election to power would be one example. Many dictators have exploited elections to justify their time in power, like the Phillipines' Marcos and Zimbabwe's Mugabe.

Hitlers eleciton to power is not the result of tryanny from the majority.. he was elected with a minority vote less then 30%. It was the flaw of their deocratic system which allowed it.

And the idea of tryanny of the majority is flawed to say the least, because whatever restricitons they impose, they do so on themselves as well. Should society be controled by the minority ? And lets get some terms straight shall we. Facisim is a system of centralized power under a dictator. A majority especially one in a system as dynamic as ours is never constant, and so the make up of both the minority and majority constantly shifts. How can we describe the power of a majority Tryanical when those in the minority today maybe in the majority tomorrow ? thus in one case having no power, and the next have all the power. This in my view seems rather democratic to me.

Simply because your ideas are likely more often then not in the minority only shows your inability to sway others, and then why should you have power if you stand alone ?

In all fairness to the United States though, any system in any country where we elect our leaders, they all do the same thing. Make promise after promise, then the day after they become elected do as they damn well please, no matter it be popular with the people or not.

The people of most 1st world nations or the "west" if you prefer have very short attention spans. What will outrage some today, will be forgotten by election day if the incumbent throws the public a few bones to get himself re-elected.

So, the populace has to take some responsibility in all this. We need to have longer term memories for one. We can't forget what we seen and or felt a year before the election. As we all know when a politician is lying, his lips are moving.

Well my friend, it all depends on how you look at Democracy, some of you may think Anarchy is Democracy, others like me think that Democracy is having the choice to work and succeed in life or stop working and fail (learning from your own mistakes and making up your life). Now, Communism is the "Democracy" where all failures and successfull live the same way, have the same amount of Money, same rights etc. which is stupid because not everyone has the same abilities! However in Capitalism, we have the choice to work and make our family live or not to and have problems. Now that may seem a radical way of speaking, but Capitalism is the most Democratic way you could ever get, because you have the Choice to do things ( People have the Power to do things or not "Demo-kratia")on the opposite of some Communisms/Socialisms which are Fake Democracies because you are forced to do things.

In all fairness to the United States though, any system in any country where we elect our leaders, they all do the same thing. Make promise after promise, then the day after they become elected do as they damn well please, no matter it be popular with the people or not.

All nations are the same regardless of the government form.


So, the populace has to take some responsibility in all this. We need to have longer term memories for one. We can't forget what we seen and or felt a year before the election. As we all know when a politician is lying, his lips are moving.

Yes I agree, the populace must take responsibility for this. Having a longer memory will not effect any change however, we already have that, and we have no real choice.

In all fairness to the United States though, any system in any country where we elect our leaders, they all do the same thing. Make promise after promise, then the day after they become elected do as they damn well please, no matter it be popular with the people or not.

The people of most 1st world nations or the "west" if you prefer have very short attention spans. What will outrage some today, will be forgotten by election day if the incumbent throws the public a few bones to get himself re-elected.

So, the populace has to take some responsibility in all this. We need to have longer term memories for one. We can't forget what we seen and or felt a year before the election. As we all know when a politician is lying, his lips are moving.

That is not a flaw of the system.. but a flaw of the people. Politicans never do as they damn well please, they do exactly what they belive will get them re-elected. Why help the poor if they poor dont vote? why not instill more religion in government institutions if the majority of your voters will approve? Republicans dont win because we just forget the bad things our canidates do... but because on a whole we like what they do, and the democrats either dont come out to vote... or simply dont have the voters!

If you dont like whats going on in your town city or state... you best not complain less youve actually gone out to vote. Local elections are by far the least participated events in the nation. Who are you to complain about who keeps getting relected if you only but help that process by being indifferent

Yes I agree, the populace must take responsibility for this. Having a longer memory will not effect any change however, we already have that, and we have no real choice.

that is simply untrue... and it is this aditude which perpetuates the problem. Your belif that there is no "real" chioce often leads people to belive there is no reason to vote.. so those dissatisfied with the process are taken out leaving only those who are satisfied continuing the cycle. Parties only put forward canidates they feel they can elect... if you show the party the canidate you want or the type of canidate you do not... it will inherently comply, as the only purpose of any political party is to attain election!

Its your own fault and no one elses... personally im quite satisfied with the system :D

That is not a flaw of the system.. but a flaw of the people. Politicans never do as they damn well please, they do exactly what they belive will get them re-elected. Why help the poor if they poor dont vote? why not instill more religion in government institutions if the majority of your voters will approve? Republicans dont win because we just forget the bad things our canidates do... but because on a whole we like what they do, and the democrats either dont come out to vote... or simply dont have the voters!

If you dont like whats going on in your town city or state... you best not complain less youve actually gone out to vote. Local elections are by far the least participated events in the nation. Who are you to complain about who keeps getting relected if you only but help that process by being indifferent

I agree with you on the majority of what you've said here.

personally im quite satisfied with the system :D

Okay, now that I don't agree with..*LOL* :p

With the exception of Kennedy, why is it that we've only elected Male WASPs as president ?

Democracy has been used to justify restricting the freedom of others. There is nothing inherently fascist about the idea of democracy, it can only be seen in practice. One trait that makes democracy such a desirable system is that it facilitates the fundemental principle of choice.If one does not favor a particular candidate, there are several more who would quite enjoy that vote. That process allows for a higher degree of political freedom, the problem arise when the majoritism reigns the political world. Freedom of movement, immigration, has been restricted because of the will of the majority. Freedom of speech has been restricted because of the will of the majority.

That is tyranny of the majority, that is the result of the purest form of the concept. That is what occurs when the majority is not kept in check and is total reign of the government. The voice of the minorty soon becomes supressed and certain potent steps are taken to silence them, for example the so-called 'Nuclear Option'. Although it will undoubtedly be abused for partisan purposes, it should not be stripped from the minority. In this state of affairs I have often heard contituents and others call for the minority to conform to their views, why? For the simple reason that their ideology is the most widespread and has contains the most practitioners.

What makes this far worse is that the United States is a republic. In theory a the republican government is supposed to serve as a reflection of the views of the people. In practice, this is quite often not the case. The parties act in their own interests and majoritism once again raises its head. The State has become more centralized over the years because of the will of the majority. Vast powers have been granted to government officials. This has given birth to a new breed of fascism, that of a fascist democracy.

War, theft, murder, and oppression have been sanctioned merely because that was the whim of the many. If it were a dictatorship, these same events would not appear to possess the justification because it was the whim of the elite. People place the blame for this outrage soley on the government. The means that are used to remedy this are to replace one corrupt regime with another. Refer to quote at the heading, "What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven." That is not the solution to end fascist democracy. That only gives it more new blood from which it can thrive. The people themselves are also to blame for their misery. They have given the State more jurisdiction over their lives and have failed to keep the State in check. If the State is kept in order and its powers restricted, the majority will not have the ability to restrict the freedoms of others using the government. It would be far far difficult to do so.

Freedom should never be restricted only because the majority wills it. I am not a proponent of monarchy or any other restricted system, I am only trying to show the flaws of the current one.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like your opinions and suggestions.

Look at the definition of my kingdom. I obviously believe that I know what is best for everyone and would glady abolish democracy and rule as a dictator. Hahahahahahahah!! :sniper:

With the exception of Kennedy, why is it that we've only elected Male WASPs as president ?

'Cause we're that only ones who know how to run things as complex as a country!

Whoops! I forgot I converted to Catholicism. :(

the only problem with democracy is that the majority can form a tyranny. I personally disagree with democracy. a republic is much better. An interesting series of books to read would be Robert A. Heinlein's Future history set, in which the American people elected a man who usurped power through popular consent. He was popular enough to do it.

In a democracy the people decide everything. Unfortunately, as stated in Men in Black, people are stupid. they are simply not educated enough to make important decisions. A republic is simply a smarter form of governemnt. That was the government the founding fathers wanted.

the only problem with democracy is that the majority can form a tyranny. I personally disagree with democracy. a republic is much better. An interesting series of books to read would be Robert A. Heinlein's Future history set, in which the American people elected a man who usurped power through popular consent. He was popular enough to do it.

In a democracy the people decide everything. Unfortunately, as stated in Men in Black, people are stupid. they are simply not educated enough to make important decisions. A republic is simply a smarter form of governemnt. That was the government the founding fathers wanted.

How is a republic less likely to do this? In a republic you have less stupid people making decisions, i.e. like 2000 vs 200 million... that would make it easier for a tyrant to come into power. Hmmm, more and more GWB reminds me of 'The Emperor' from Star Wars.

With the exception of Kennedy, why is it that we've only elected Male WASPs as president ?

Kennedy and both Bush's mind you :) ... but i imagine that is because thier voter bases wanted them.

Infact.. if you think about it.. the American system has protections AGAINST Majority tryannical power with the electorate for the presidential elections. If we relied on popular vote, the Facism of the Majority would be only more realized as states with higher populations ie NY, CA, and TX would have more power.

Then again, if you in the minority your probably not all that happy with the electorate system as it elected Bush the first time around ^_^.. just sucks for you on all fronts

In a democracy the people decide everything. Unfortunately, as stated in Men in Black, people are stupid. they are simply not educated enough to make important decisions. A republic is simply a smarter form of governemnt. That was the government the founding fathers wanted.
Look what it transformed into, it has abused its power and has in fact expanded them. The people are pushed even more out of the way which gives the politicians more say in the matter.

that is simply untrue... and it is this aditude which perpetuates the problem. Your belif that there is no "real" chioce often leads people to belive there is no reason to vote.. so those dissatisfied with the process are taken out leaving only those who are satisfied continuing the cycle. Parties only put forward canidates they feel they can elect... if you show the party the canidate you want or the type of canidate you do not... it will inherently comply, as the only purpose of any political party is to attain election!

Its your own fault and no one elses... personally im quite satisfied with the system :D

I'm not complaining I dont partake of your system.
Nor do I seek changing my own.
History will happen in its own time.

;)

How is a republic less likely to do this? In a republic you have less stupid people making decisions, i.e. like 2000 vs 200 million... that would make it easier for a tyrant to come into power. Hmmm, more and more GWB reminds me of 'The Emperor' from Star Wars.

wrong.. those 2000 people are themselves more prepared to make the right decisions because they have all the information, unlike the general public who only has the clips the media finds juciy enough to give. Every democrat will scream bloody murder because they belive Bush lied about WMD.... strange though Those world representatives in the UN would never go so far as they had all the same evidence and still passed 1441.

Simply said they made the right decision given the evidence at hand

Look what it transformed into, it has abused its power and has in fact expanded them. The people are pushed even more out of the way which gives the politicians more say in the matter.

where has it abused its power ? where have the people been pushed out of the way?

Golly gosh gee, it seems this may turn into an anti-Bush VS pro-bush thread soon.

where has it abused its power ? where have the people been pushed out of the way?
It has expanded its powers wich in my eyes is abuse. The government can have even more jurisdiction over ones life. I was saying that in a republic it pushes the people more out of the picture because they do not have a direct say. With that in mind the politicians have more free reign.

It has expanded its powers wich in my eyes is abuse. The government can have even more jurisdiction over ones life. I was saying that in a republic it pushes the people more out of the picture because they do not have a direct say. With that in mind the politicians have more free reign.

I would have to viemently disagree with that. Simply because we dont practice a direct democracy does not mean we are pushed out of the picture. Infact using a representative democracy allows government to be given the level attention it requires, as opposed to direct democracy where individuals with scarcely time enough to run their own lives would then have to be charged with taking more time to run the country. We directly vote in those representatives, and their actions are the basis for our vote. If politicans felt they had free reign there would be little need for the PR patrol to be on the constant defensive.

In this day and age, when security is such a mammoth issue, and we expect our government to give the protection we cannot give ourselves, we should expect them to take more control... less they otherwise be charged with indifference

It has expanded its powers wich in my eyes is abuse. The government can have even more jurisdiction over ones life. I was saying that in a republic it pushes the people more out of the picture because they do not have a direct say. With that in mind the politicians have more free reign.

I have no problem with the government expanding its powers. I am a citizen of the united states and my elected officials acting in a manner that I do not disapprove of is not abuse at all, it is only the government at work and possibly even doing a good job.

I have no problem with the government expanding its powers. I am a citizen of the united states and my elected officials acting in a manner that I do not disapprove of is not abuse at all, it is only the government at work and possibly even doing a good job.
Then we can agree to disagree, that issue is subjective then. I believe ina decentralized goevrnmet. This allows for the local governments to govern themselves as they please rather than one centralized government ruling everyone as the majority wants. Another way to make things more tailor made is if the government took their hands out of the economy. That way those who want a service can purchase it from the economy and those that don't can abstain from doing so. The current system is that everyone pays regardless of whether you use a service or don't want to.

Then we can agree to disagree, that issue is subjective then. I believe ina decentralized goevrnmet. This allows for the local governments to govern themselves as they please rather than one centralized government ruling everyone as the majority wants. Another way to make things more tailor made is if the government took their hands out of the economy. That way those who want a service can purchase it from the economy and those that don't can abstain from doing so. The current system is that everyone pays regardless of whether you use a service or don't want to.

I actually agree with you on this note.. i belive strongly in states powers over Federal... however, Governments primary purpose for me is security, and while I belive states should have the power to regulate us on a small scale, they are largely incapable of dealing with the global threats which present us today. In this note I aplaude and expect more federal growth in the sector of defense and security...

I wonder why the Iraqis aren't winning then...

EDIT: And what is an IED? Oh, and AK74s constitute a "good enough" rifle in my book. Not that much worse than any US rifle. It shoots a bullet at something afterall...

I don't recall saying that they were winning, only that thier tactics are effective. They sure were when I was over there, and probably will be again when I go back. But my point is that we have 160,000 troops there, and I believe that the number of insurgents is significantly fewer. So if a few thousand people can tie up what roughly equals ten divisions, think of what an armed populace (U.S.) could do if the government declared martial law or suddenly decided to void the Bill of Rights. The tactics of the weak can be overwhelming.

I actually agree with you on this note.. i belive strongly in states powers over Federal... however, Governments primary purpose for me is security, and while I belive states should have the power to regulate us on a small scale, they are largely incapable of dealing with the global threats which present us today. In this note I aplaude and expect more federal growth in the sector of defense and security...
The prolem with security is where one draws the line. Should the government protect you even if it is as the cost of some of yours and other's freedoms? That may have to do with foreign policy. If the government were more non-interventionist, then there would be less need for security.

i only have one thing to say: Democracy is Anarcy with a less shocking name.

Fa$cism Forward!

The prolem with security is where one draws the line. Should the government protect you even if it is as the cost of some of yours and other's freedoms? That may have to do with foreign policy. If the government were more non-interventionist, then there would be less need for security.

The government is meant to protect the people at any cost. Governments and societies were designed to protect people no matter what the cost is to the individuals living in that government. If the government did not intervene, eventually we would be forced to. WW2 and the following Cold-War taught us that fact. I am proud that America does help people.

I also disagree with your idea on taxing. Most of the goods that are only supplied by the government are goods with high positive externalities, this means that you benefit by their existence whether you use these goods or not.

Ultimately I do not care about centralization so long as certain standards are met across the board. The US does a pretty good job with its federal system already but I do not think that people any where should deal with lessened standards for education, or protective laws(laws that protect us from harmful business practices and the like). But certain things have to be dealt with the central government(gay marriage is too controversial to allow it in some states but not others).

The government is meant to protect the people at any cost. Governments and societies were designed to protect people no matter what the cost is to the individuals living in that government. If the government did not intervene, eventually we would be forced to. WW2 and the following Cold-War taught us that fact. I am proud that America does help people.

I also disagree with your idea on taxing. Most of the goods that are only supplied by the government are goods with high positive externalities, this means that you benefit by their existence whether you use these goods or not.

Ultimately I do not care about centralization so long as certain standards are met across the board. The US does a pretty good job with its federal system already but I do not think that people any where should deal with lessened standards for education, or protective laws(laws that protect us from harmful business practices and the like). But certain things have to be dealt with the central government(gay marriage is too controversial to allow it in some states but not others).
World War II and the Cold War were results of foreign policy, interventionism. If the government did not intervene in the affairs of other nations, respect national sovereignty, then others would have no reason to attack us. If you are correct that the government is to protect us at any cost, then I have sufficient reason to fear them. They have the power to create illusions of fear and can easily control, our lives, all under the guise of security. The state could quickly become fascist if the people were afraid enough.

I have some ethical problems with taxes, they are not voluntary. I did not enter the contract, more I was born into it without my consent. The services that government uses taxes for could be used to purchase better services that the market could provide. If I wanted to enrole a child into a private school which did not take federal funding, I would still have to pay for the education of another. If I do not use a government service, I should not have to pay for it. If I would rather hire a private security firm rather than use the police, then I should not have to taxes for that service.

I have my own view on gay marriage, let the religious or secular institutions deal with it. If a church refuses to marry a homosexual couple, then they shoud not have to do so. The couple can find one that will. The government should not have a say in the matter. Private institutions can manage.

I don't recall saying that they were winning, only that thier tactics are effective. They sure were when I was over there, and probably will be again when I go back. But my point is that we have 160,000 troops there, and I believe that the number of insurgents is significantly fewer. So if a few thousand people can tie up what roughly equals ten divisions, think of what an armed populace (U.S.) could do if the government declared martial law or suddenly decided to void the Bill of Rights. The tactics of the weak can be overwhelming.
I should have said that better.
I was talking about the Iraqi military under Saddam - they obviously were better armed (and presumably trained) than the US populace, and yet they were stomped into the ground.

The insurgents are obviously not stopping the political process.

The entire American populace would never stand up and fight. All women, children and immigrants? All with guns handed out by your friendly neighbourhood gun-nut? Seems a little bit comical to me...

You are also forgetting the various die-hard fans of the PotUS (any PotUS), as well as those that just couldn't give a shit.

The only argument that was any good as to why the US populace could defeat the US military is that US soldiers might not want to shoot at their own guys. I guess, if you move the various divisions away from their home it may be easier...

In conclusion, if the US populace starts shooting at soldiers patrolling their streets, the soldiers will shoot back. If many start shooting at the soldiers, they are going to call in tanks, helicopters etc. You may be able to be glorified troublemakers, but you won't bring down your government with handguns.

World War II and the Cold War were results of foreign policy, interventionism. If the government did not intervene in the affairs of other nations, respect national sovereignty, then others would have no reason to attack us. If you are correct that the government is to protect us at any cost, then I have sufficient reason to fear them. They have the power to create illusions of fear and can easily control, our lives, all under the guise of security. The state could quickly become fascist if the people were afraid enough.

I have some ethical problems with taxes, they are not voluntary. I did not enter the contract, more I was born into it without my consent. The services that government uses taxes for could be used to purchase better services that the market could provide. If I wanted to enrole a child into a private school which did not take federal funding, I would still have to pay for the education of another. If I do not use a government service, I should not have to pay for it. If I would rather hire a private security firm rather than use the police, then I should not have to taxes for that service.


We were attacked in WW2 by the Japanese. We were not involved in the war but Japan saw us as a threat to their interests in the Pacific. We did not actually pick that fight. We were also drawn into the Cold War, The USSR had shown itself to be an expansionist threat.

Deal with it! Taxes are not cripplingly high. They are voluntary, if you do not like them then leave human society and live as a hermit. If you do not pay for the education of other children, then the system breaks down because not everyone can afford private education and the education of others reduces crime and helps the economy which in turn helps you. This is the same with the police(maybe not the economy part). For people to pick and choose what they would like to support selfishly creates inequities that are ultimately unjust(poor children need to be educated so that they do not have to grow up to be poor, and poor people need protection as much or more than the rest of us do).

Ultimately, I view the failing of libertarianism is the fact that we are all in this together and that your rights do not matter if a little bit from you can create a world of good for someone else.

We were attacked in WW2 by the Japanese. We were not involved in the war but Japan saw us as a threat to their interests in the Pacific. We did not actually pick that fight. We were also drawn into the Cold War, The USSR had shown itself to be an expansionist threat.
Mmmmh?!

We were attacked in WW2 by the Japanese. We were not involved in the war but Japan saw us as a threat to their interests in the Pacific. We did not actually pick that fight. We were also drawn into the Cold War, The USSR had shown itself to be an expansionist threat.

Deal with it! Taxes are not cripplingly high. They are voluntary, if you do not like them then leave human society and live as a hermit. If you do not pay for the education of other children, then the system breaks down because not everyone can afford private education and the education of others reduces crime and helps the economy which in turn helps you. This is the same with the police(maybe not the economy part). For people to pick and choose what they would like to support selfishly creates inequities that are ultimately unjust(poor children need to be educated so that they do not have to grow up to be poor, and poor people need protection as much or more than the rest of us do).

Ultimately, I view the failing of libertarianism is the fact that we are all in this together and that your rights do not matter if a little bit from you can create a world of good for someone else.
I was talking about the start of World War II in Europe. That was my point, the Cold War started because of intervention. I'm not just talking about American involvement you know. Might I also remind you of the tariffs we placed on Japan? That was a result of the government moving from politics and takign charge of the economy. On the Cold War, we did not have to enter it but we decided to do so anyway and it created a culture of fear. The core of it all is intervention.

Taxes are not voluntary, I did not agree to begin paying taxes, I will be forced to and if I do not pay taxes I will be sent to prison for tax evasion. Any where you go, short of becomming a hermit, you will have to pay taxes. Should I be isolated simply because I wish to find my services without using the government as an outlet? If you gave people their money that the would spend on public education, chances are they could afford to attend a private school. There are also private charities and local organizations. The same can go for police protection. Poor neighborhoods do not seem very safe with government protection. Communities would voluntarily form and they could afford protection if need be.

I believe in individualism. Everyone has their rights and they should not have to surrender them unless they choose to do so. I have no problem with charity or welfare, so long as it is voluntary. I believe in personal responsibility. I do not hold the collective over the individual, I see that as ends over means.

We must agree to disagree.

Mmmmh?!

What is the problem? Did I state a historical inaccuracy, a typo or do you like posting Mmmmh?!?

We must agree to disagree.

I do not believe in individualism over the collective because why should I be screwed because you are a jerk. Also, not everyone could afford a private school(some people are too poor to pay taxes). I would also like to state that relying on the kindness of others to support the greatness of society would be a tax on the generous and responsible citizens of the nation(taxation on virtue is stupid). Finally, community groups would face difficulty due to the unreliable nature of vigilante justice, police are held accountable for their actions but outside organizations are more likely to get away with crimes that would be considered more inhumane than the criminals themselves. The ends justify the means, that is the truth of all human existence, the happiest ending is the best choice.

Yes, we are never going to agree but I do not want your impractical ideals(which I personally believe are wrong) being spread without someone challenging them.

What is the problem? Did I state a historical inaccuracy, a typo or do you like posting Mmmmh?!?
:D
I would be hijacking, so I won't say much...I'm just pointing out that to say "America wasn't involved in the war" or even that they were neutral might just be stretching it a little bit.

:D
I would be hijacking, so I won't say much...I'm just pointing out that to say "America wasn't involved in the war" or even that they were neutral might just be stretching it a little bit.

Look, I will admit that I was stretching the definition a little but lets just face the facts. The world would be worse if Hitler killed the Jewish population. We were not militarily involved and I do not remember us ever offering actual opposition against Japan(we did provide supplies to Britain but Japan was not involved in that).

-snip-
Okay, but this is the last word on the matter.
The Embargo, the meddling in the Japanese war in China, the provision of military hardware to Britain (which was fighting the Japanese directly in SE Asia) and generally not-so-nice rhetoric.
But agreed, most people are probably better off because of it.

Why should I be screwed because you want something?

The government trained police are held accountable to the government, if they jail an innocent man or cheat someone, they aren't as harshly punished as by a private firm. A private firm as a reputation to maintain, they are to perform in the utmost excellence and to satisfy the consumer. If they jail an innocent man, then that could be catastrophic. People would not want to hire a firm that shot someone that was innocent or went ballistic. They could simply hire a different firm.

I want people to challenge my beliefs, it keeps one from becomming too ideological. I hope the same is true with you. This has been a good debate. I could believe your ideas are wrong, but that's life.

Why should I be screwed because you want something is also my question.
Society exists for communal gain, by small sacrifices on the part of some people greater gains are made by others. I do not rely on the government but I do not want someone who genuinely needs help to be denied because you want a gold plated pool or a luxury car.

If private firms became so common then the laws governing them would not be as strict(corporations are very capable of affecting the government). Private firms might not be as scrupulous as the police(the police do not risk their lives for the good pay) and corporations have more to gain from cheating their customers and could even be outright scams with little evidence. Also, the whole protection firm thing is a horrible idea, the mafia also did a protection firm, high rates or your knee-caps get mangled, I fear that under such a system organized crime may become a common business practice in order to force people to get a certain company.

Look, I will admit that I was stretching the definition a little but lets just face the facts. The world would be worse if Hitler killed the Jewish population. We were not militarily involved and I do not remember us ever offering actual opposition against Japan(we did provide supplies to Britain but Japan was not involved in that).
Do you have MSN messenger or AIM? I'd like to continue this on a more fast paced level.

Do you have MSN messenger or AIM? I'd like to continue this on a more fast paced level.

Sorry, I can not do so. I do not have MSN or AIM.

Why should I be screwed because you want something is also my question.
Society exists for communal gain, by small sacrifices on the part of some people greater gains are made by others. I do not rely on the government but I do not want someone who genuinely needs help to be denied because you want a gold plated pool or a luxury car.

If private firms became so common then the laws governing them would not be as strict(corporations are very capable of affecting the government). Private firms might not be as scrupulous as the police(the police do not risk their lives for the good pay) and corporations have more to gain from cheating their customers and could even be outright scams with little evidence. Also, the whole protection firm thing is a horrible idea, the mafia also did a protection firm, high rates or your knee-caps get mangled, I fear that under such a system organized crime may become a common business practice in order to force people to get a certain company.
I have no problem with mutual exchange so as it is voluntary. The protection firms of th mafias were so high because for one they were illegal and too there was no other private competition. The government would still be there for law, the difference would be that government police would be replaced by private security firms. Like I said a firm as a reputation to maintain and if fraud is discovered, then they woul lose business and possibly go bankrupt.

I have no problem with mutual exchange so as it is voluntary. The protection firms of th mafias were so high because for one they were illegal and too there was no other private competition. The government would still be there for law, the difference would be that government police would be replaced by private security firms. Like I said a firm as a reputation to maintain and if fraud is discovered, then they woul lose business and possibly go bankrupt.

Still, I do not trust the private sector in such matters. The government would still have to have police or an army to enforce its will(law & order). Monopolies could still be formed by private organizations through clever use of vandals to trick people into switching companies to the "better protection firm". Reputation might not be as effective either, where government leaves a void some force will try to fill it, that force would probably be corporations and criminals, and because of their self serving nature it would be easy to avoid such problems(the media could also be bought and controlled by powerful men).

The government is not great but it at least is trying to do good things(most people who want money do not become part of the government but instead go into business, so government officials are more likely to have some form of desire to help the people). Corporations are designed to seek the good of only the corporation. Corporations are not always headed by those with moral tendencies due to the fact that power can be easily achieved and sociopathic tendencies can actually be encouraged.
http://biz.yahoo.com/special/psycho05.html

Still, I do not trust the private sector in such matters. The government would still have to have police or an army to enforce its will(law & order). Monopolies could still be formed by private organizations through clever use of vandals to trick people into switching companies to the "better protection firm". Reputation might not be as effective either, where government leaves a void some force will try to fill it, that force would probably be corporations and criminals, and because of their self serving nature it would be easy to avoid such problems(the media could also be bought and controlled by powerful men).
If the people suspected fraud or an injustice then they could hire another firm, which would gladly take their business. It would be in that other firm's best interest to stop the help the people because that would mean a boost in profits. Then the firm that cause the damaged could be taken to a court and made to pay for the damages.

The government is not great but it at least is trying to do good things(most people who want money do not become part of the government but instead go into business, so government officials are more likely to have some form of desire to help the people). Corporations are designed to seek the good of only the corporation. Corporations are not always headed by those with moral tendencies due to the fact that power can be easily achieved and sociopathic tendencies can actually be encouraged.
http://biz.yahoo.com/special/psycho05.html
There are some corporations like that. For the vast majority of the time, it is in the corporations best interests to please the customer and therefore must have high standards. If a boss is mad then the employee could go to the press, which would give the manager a bad reputation Then it would be best if that manager were fired.

That's a shame that you don't have MSN or AIM. Have we started going in circles yet?

If the people suspected fraud or an injustice then they could hire another firm, which would gladly take their business. It would be in that other firm's best interest to stop the help the people because that would mean a boost in profits. Then the firm that cause the damaged could be taken to a court and made to pay for the damages.


There are some corporations like that. For the vast majority of the time, it is in the corporations best interests to please the customer and therefore must have high standards. If a boss is mad then the employee could go to the press, which would give the manager a bad reputation Then it would be best if that manager were fired.

That's a shame that you don't have MSN or AIM. Have we started going in circles yet?

I do not know how long it will be before we start going in circles. I may end up going to sleep before then(I usually stop posting before midnight and here it is almost 10 central time)

People might not know about the fraud or bad business practices. If the government can cover up problems then why not a powerful corporation?

The bad corporations would be far worse than any government, it would not surprise me if a powerful businessman in a protection industry might try to control a city just for sadistic pleasure. The fact is that government is not as likely to have the level of corruption that a business would have because of the fact that corrupt individuals are less likely to be drawn to the government.(there is less gain and the corrupt individuals in government usually are aiding a corporation at the cost of the government) I would trust the government before a corporation because I doubt that the elected officials want the position for the money or power(the big money is in business same as power). No government official is likely to go to the extremes that businessman do unless they were bribed by a businessman.

I simply think that the government is a less corrupt institution by its nature than business. Also, I would like to state that massive corruption and clever maneuverings could be used to control a nation(if we weakened the government the power vacuum would be filled by the unscrupulous).

I should have said that better.
I was talking about the Iraqi military under Saddam - they obviously were better armed (and presumably trained) than the US populace, and yet they were stomped into the ground.

The insurgents are obviously not stopping the political process.

The entire American populace would never stand up and fight. All women, children and immigrants? All with guns handed out by your friendly neighbourhood gun-nut? Seems a little bit comical to me...

You are also forgetting the various die-hard fans of the PotUS (any PotUS), as well as those that just couldn't give a shit.

The only argument that was any good as to why the US populace could defeat the US military is that US soldiers might not want to shoot at their own guys. I guess, if you move the various divisions away from their home it may be easier...

In conclusion, if the US populace starts shooting at soldiers patrolling their streets, the soldiers will shoot back. If many start shooting at the soldiers, they are going to call in tanks, helicopters etc. You may be able to be glorified troublemakers, but you won't bring down your government with handguns.

No, but we will with battle rifles. :-)
As I pointed to before, the Iraqi insurgents are fighting smart and well with low-tech means, and are being a huge nuisance. Thier regular army was quickly beaten (I was there for that when I was in the Marines). There is not an army in the world that can stand up to the United States in a linear battlefield. We dominate. That being said, we were vastly unprepared and ill-trained for MOUT combat. Sure, it is easy to find the lone gunman hiding in the dunes with the IR sensors on a Cobra, but try doing it in an urban environment. Needle in a stack of needles.
No, not all of America will take up arms, probably something like a 10th, which is what, 30 million? Even a 20th would still be 15 million, a huge number. A very, very troublesome number. And the only reason that they would likely take up arms is if the Constitution had been declared dead by a tyrranical despot. And, if that happens, only very small elements of the military would side with such a douche, because thier rights as citizens would be forfiet as well. The power of our government to rule is given by our people, and I hope that should it ever go wrong, we would choose, as a people, to take it away.

-snip-
Very well.
Now, what would happen if you didn't have guns, and you just went out there protesting peacefully and practicing civil disobedience?

Very well.
Now, what would happen if you didn't have guns, and you just went out there protesting peacefully and practicing civil disobedience?

It depends on the situation. If the Constitution has been openly threatened or repealed, then there is no First Amendment protecting us, so who knows? Repeat of Tianammen (sp)? I am not saying that the first action to be taken is massive violence, but if the Constitution was abolished it would probably lead to that.

Very well.
Now, what would happen if you didn't have guns, and you just went out there protesting peacefully and practicing civil disobedience?

Well, civil disobedience would probably be as effective as guns(American troops are not trained to kill people that are unarmed). If there are enough people protesting then the rulers may be forced to acquiesce due to the horrible damage to the economy that would be caused by such, as well as damage to popular opinion because the American people are naturally individualistic and such oppression might be likely to cause an even more popular resistence.

Really, I doubt that a dictatorship could ever form in the united states unless there was a total collapse of our economy and the masses become desperate.

Well, civil disobedience would probably be as effective as guns
There, we finally agree on something.

(American troops are not trained to kill people that are unarmed). If there are enough people protesting then the rulers may be forced to acquiesce due to the horrible damage to the economy that would be caused by such, as well as damage to popular opinion because the American people are naturally individualistic and such oppression might be likely to cause an even more popular resistence.

Really, I doubt that a dictatorship could ever form in the united states unless there was a total collapse of our economy and the masses become desperate.
I wouldn't say a dictatorship could rise, at least not in the current conditions, but the state could become more centralized and the head of state could expand his powers, but it wouldn't develop into a dictatorship quite yet. If the people are loud enough then change will occur, usually, but that will ahve to be a loud voice.

If the Consitution were scrapped, then that's a different situation.

I wouldn't say a dictatorship could rise, at least not in the current conditions, but the state could become more centralized and the head of state could expand his powers, but it wouldn't develop into a dictatorship quite yet. If the people are loud enough then change will occur, usually, but that will ahve to be a loud voice.

Well, what is there to do? I do not think that you have any idea better than letting the system run its course(if you were king/president you might do different things but I doubt that you have power). It is possible to join a commune or something that experiences relative isolation from the rest of society(the amish are doing fine). It may also be possible to leave the country and move to another. I do not think that our current government is doing too bad(they do choose crappy battles like Terry Sciavo but that is minor).

Take my philosophy: "People are stupid". I am sure that it is not your 1st time to hear this ideology and it probably will not be the last.

Repeat of Tianammen (sp)?
Well, the point of non-violent resistance is to just take it and know that they can't keep doing it.
It worked for Gandhi (sp?). They can hardly kill the entire US population, or even a twentieth of it.

Well, the point of non-violent resistance is to just take it and know that they can't keep doing it.
It worked for Gandhi (sp?). They can hardly kill the entire US population, or even a twentieth of it.

Non-violent resistance would ultimately be too costly for the US government to allow. The fact that this would arouse popular support for american freedoms across the world would deal the economy a crippling blow in many ways and considering that the economy is important to everyone I doubt that a dictator would continue after it is realized that he can not get very far with his schemes.
If the US economy has already deteriorated then no one really cares about freedom enough to protest anyway, being a slave is better than dying of starvation.

So my point is made then?
More relaxed gun laws do not make the US citzenry any more save from Dictatorship and Tyranny!

So my point is made then?
More relaxed gun laws do not make the US citzenry any more save from Dictatorship and Tyranny!

No, it isn't made. US History is rife with situations where US soldiers were called out to disperse crowds of people protesting things like war, poverty, working conditions. Kent State ring any bells?

Non-violent resistance would ultimately be too costly for the US government to allow. The fact that this would arouse popular support for american freedoms across the world would deal the economy a crippling blow in many ways and considering that the economy is important to everyone I doubt that a dictator would continue after it is realized that he can not get very far with his schemes.
If the US economy has already deteriorated then no one really cares about freedom enough to protest anyway, being a slave is better than dying of starvation.

I doubt if non-violent resistance is too costly for the US government to allow. Hitler had 11 million unarmed people murdered. That obviosly cost alot of money, and they did it during a war, when that money could have been much better spent on other things. Would it have made a difference if they had banded together for a nice session of non-violent resistance? I doubt it.
I like Ghandi, he accomplished alot and proved what can be done without violence. But, do not forget that Indian independance did not come about solely through passive resistance.

No, it isn't made. US History is rife with situations where US soldiers were called out to disperse crowds of people protesting things like war, poverty, working conditions. Kent State ring any bells?

I do not think that the army would have much difficulty if the crowds of people actually did have guns. Besides those people were being more of a nuisance than they should have while protesting.(they were rioting and causing a lot of damage to property, it was not as peaceful as it should have been)

I do not think that the army would have much difficulty if the crowds of people actually did have guns. Besides those people were being more of a nuisance than they should have while protesting.(they were rioting and causing a lot of damage to property, it was not as peaceful as it should have been)

Yeah, shooting people because they are damaging property is morally legit. Seriously.

Yeah, shooting people because they are damaging property is morally legit. Seriously.

Shooting people because they were damaging property and attacking through some means is morally legit. If you threw rocks at me and started burning down my garden or something I would shoot you.

Shooting people because they were damaging property and attacking through some means is morally legit. If you threw rocks at me and started burning down my garden or something I would shoot you.

I wouldn't shoot you unless I felt that my life or someone else's was in immediate danger from you, not because you threw rocks at me or burned down my garden. Do you have kids in the neighborhood? You might want to warn parents that you shoot for rock-throwing and small fires.

Hitler was elected, was he not?

Yes. He was not elected. He never won a majority.

I wouldn't shoot you unless I felt that my life or someone else's was in immediate danger from you, not because you threw rocks at me or burned down my garden. Do you have kids in the neighborhood? You might want to warn parents that you shoot for rock-throwing and small fires.

Kids are not the same as adults(they do not have the same thinking capabilities). In the case of children I would drive them off through fear and force or even get their parents involved. In the case of an adult I would not really care, if someone is a threat to me, my property, my goals or anything I will eliminate them in the most efficient and effective way possible whether this is outperforming them, using physical efforts to remove them, calling outside authority, or taking their life. The national guard was the outside authority in that situation and they were being attacked by a group that was mostly adults. The people almost deserve being shot for provoking ARMED men instead of doing what they were told.

The entire problem would probably not exist if it weren't for the idiots that rioted before the event took place. I see no fault in the government's actions I only see fault in the undisciplined mobs that had earlier undermined authority and damaged the property of those who had done nothing.

I'm not exactly familiar with the particular demonstration you are talking about, so I'll pose the question:
What do you think would have happened if the demonstrators were armed? Would it have changed the outcome?

I'm not exactly familiar with the particular demonstration you are talking about, so I'll pose the question:
What do you think would have happened if the demonstrators were armed? Would it have changed the outcome?

There would have been no difference except the higher losses on both sides.

(I did not know much about the demonstration until I looked the Kent State Massacre up on wiki)
The problem with the demonstration was the problems that had gone on before. The situation was getting out of hand and innocent people were getting hurt by demonstrators, the National Guard had a duty to protect these innocents and preserve property. I do not see the National Guard as doing anything wrong because of the fact that they were trying to preserve order and by preserving that order protect people, the demonstrators had in the past rioted and looted shops and even may have set a building on fire and then tried to keep the fire department from putting that fire out.

I take no offense to the message of the protestors just the fact that they were so wantonly destructive and caused harm to those who were not involved. They were the aggressors and the National Guard was serving the people.

Kids are not the same as adults(they do not have the same thinking capabilities). In the case of children I would drive them off through fear and force or even get their parents involved. In the case of an adult I would not really care, if someone is a threat to me, my property, my goals or anything I will eliminate them in the most efficient and effective way possible whether this is outperforming them, using physical efforts to remove them, calling outside authority, or taking their life. The national guard was the outside authority in that situation and they were being attacked by a group that was mostly adults. The people almost deserve being shot for provoking ARMED men instead of doing what they were told.

The entire problem would probably not exist if it weren't for the idiots that rioted before the event took place. I see no fault in the government's actions I only see fault in the undisciplined mobs that had earlier undermined authority and damaged the property of those who had done nothing.

In response to that, here is a picture Provoking ARMED men instead of doing what you are told (http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg)

Shout out to Oleg Volk for his great posters.

In response to that, here is a picture Provoking ARMED men instead of doing what you are told (http://www.a-human-right.com/s_monopoly.jpg)

Shout out to Oleg Volk for his great posters.

The national guard was there in order to keep another riot from happening and to protect the property of innocent people. The government does deserve our trust despite that poster comparing removal of the 2nd amendment to Nazis or whatever. The fact is that the Kent State Massacre happened because people were idiots, no stupid little college protest should be so arrogant to think that it is more important than law, order, the lives of fellow citizens, or the society that it lives in. Kent State would probably have never happened if these college students stuck to marches and peaceful protest.

The national guard was there in order to keep another riot from happening and to protect the property of innocent people. The government does deserve our trust despite that poster comparing removal of the 2nd amendment to Nazis or whatever. The fact is that the Kent State Massacre happened because people were idiots, no stupid little college protest should be so arrogant to think that it is more important than law, order, the lives of fellow citizens, or the society that it lives in. Kent State would probably have never happened if these college students stuck to marches and peaceful protest.

Yeah, it sure does deserve our trust. People should not die for damaging property, because that means that property is more important than human life.

Yeah, it sure does deserve our trust. People should not die for damaging property, because that means that property is more important than human life.
It is not the property that is important, it is the damage to society and undermining of societal will that is important. A peaceful protest probably would not have been some big problem that would have required the national guard. The fact is that these protesters were not peaceful, they threw bottles at cops, they lit bonfires in the middle of town, they prevented firemen from putting out a fire by destroying firehoses, they vandalized stores. The citizens of the town were scared of these protesters. They were not civilized and peaceful, they were an unruly mob that threatened the order that the citizens of Kent were afraid of. The mayor of Kent had already declared a state of emergency before the massacre happened, the protesters believed that their actions of protest that day were illegal yet they still continued. These people were asking for it. They joined a protest believed at the time to be illegal, they provoked armed men, they disobeyed authority, they did not even think about the consequences of their actions, they were most certainly disregarding the fears of a frightened city.

I think that they in many ways deserved what they got. They were not being reasonable, they were not behaving appropriately, they were hurting the city of Kent, they were being complete jackasses(at least in my opinion). I feel bad that such happened but I can not mourn the deaths of those people, only the actions that led to those deaths.