Present to Communists

People can't just rule over themselves. It would be great if they could, yes, but there are those out there that just want to rule over other peopel, and will do that, because there is a wide open hole. And then this will dissolve into fights, and rebellionsn and revolutions, and horrible systems of death and destruction with no force to intervene (police).
But those people pursueing power need popular support and in a direct democracy with maximum rights for everyone (that is right to do anything except harm), they would lack any support.

I support decentralization. Make it so that the government has less power over your personal life and over society (There are just a few exceptions). But decentarliztiong the government so much that you have thousands and thousands of little city states, in a day like today, would result in so much war, it'd be bloodier then Europe.
How could local government possibly mean war? On the contrary it would mean less war because there is no benfit to going to war unlike with groups holding power who want to increase their power.

Athens. Brilliant ecnter of culture and learning, where slaves are worked 24/7 and only let off on religious holidays, where they are paid nothing to work at a factory, farm, or house, and then live ina kind of human kennel.
That is not complete decentralized (aka grassroots) consensus democracy, as not everyone was allowed to participate. I mean, do you really consider not giving a huge group of people no voting rights to be condensus democracy (BTW, I said direct but I meant consensus).


Blind Faith.
Fair enough. But you have to understand that in a debate you can't use blind faith to justify things in a logical process (unless you consider the logical process to need blind faith in something other than the logical process and- although its not really blind faith since if there were contradictions and incorrect conclusions it would mean nobody would believe it any longer).
 
But those people pursueing power need popular support and in a direct democracy with maximum rights for everyone (that is right to do anything except harm), they would lack any support.
Exactly. It would lead to a system of bloody wars and revolutions, and then there might be a leader who rises with a well accepted platform, but this upsets the no-power thing.

How could local government possibly mean war? On the contrary it would mean less war because there is no benfit to going to war unlike with groups holding power who want to increase their power.
Ancient Greek states warred all the time. Came closer in US's Articles of Confederation period.

That is not complete decentralized (aka grassroots) consensus democracy, as not everyone was allowed to participate. I mean, do you really consider not giving a huge group of people no voting rights to be condensus democracy (BTW, I said direct but I meant consensus).
No, but if it was, it would eventually dissolve into this. A majority will arise and take away votes from another part. It can't be helped. And not to mention the fact that an argument would never get solved. Some people just refuse to see any other way (me and religion, for example) and it will lead to eternal stalemate. In Congress, at least, we have to make concessions to hold power.


Fair enough.
Thanks for that.
 
Exactly. It would lead to a system of bloody wars and revolutions, and then there might be a leader who rises with a well accepted platform, but this upsets the no-power thing.
Proove this statement please (seriously you need to put more becauses in your posts). This especially wouldn't happen if you introduced the system in the way I support. That is form a completely seperate society independently (without need to destroy established institutions) in various places around the globe that are united for the cause (put not united in a hateful way like previous revolutions). This would mean that not only would there be no logical reason for war, there would be no emotional one as well.

Ancient rek states warred all the time. Came closer in US's Articles of Confederation period.
See above (the Ancient Greeks states were not all democratic, nor did they have common emotional ties, even though there generally were logical ties).

No, but if it was, it would eventually dissolve into this. A majority will arise and take away votes from another part. It can't be helped.
Thats why we have consensus democracy. Besides, people easily know that if they start causing harm to others its a very slippery slope that can turn into their own harm (in addition to the way of founding).
Besides, how is your system anyless likly to devolve into slavery, I mean if the majority started supporting it then the representatives will eventually support it too.


BTW, I'm going to sleep now (or at least very soon).
 
No, the state can strip you of your property if the soverign democratic power of the state so wishes.

Yeah, its called tyranny, and violating human rights.

I'm glad I'm protected from all that.
 
Religion, weather you believe in it or not, is true. And as such, if the Bible says it, it's true.
Also, the Bible was written by man; small anti-women statements were probably edited for the sake of maintiainging power.

:crazyeye:

Well I hope that the bible is not true. I would prefer not to be ruled by a celestial totalitarian overlord who sees everything I do, and decides everything concerning me and my world. That thought scares me, especially when that totalitarian overlord "is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." I'm quoting Richard Dawkins.

:lol: I meant france today.

Uh, okay. What French (popular) policies are you refering to? The refusal to follow US to the criminal, mass-murderous war in Iraq?

:rolleyes: That's fascism.

At least the fascists supported some social programs. In conservative neoliberalism, we have no rights -- dogs and cats have rights, because no decent person tortures cats or dogs -- bu humans have no rights beyond what they can afford in the markets.

We argue that corporations will rise and fall with the tide, there is little need for gov't intervention.

No, conservatives are corporatists. They argue that the economy should be completely controlled by private totalitarian institutions, unaccountable and unregulated by any democratic institution. They also want to crush labour organization or render it impossible. And also, they want to dissolve the government's democratic institutions by making them unresponsive to the public. Furthermore, they want completely unregulated brainwashing, deception and manpulation by business (advertisement). In the end, actually, the conservatives are a lot like marxists.

Also, there's quite a good book you might want to read: the conservative nanny state. Google it. It's readily available.

We aregye that we need the military to protect us, not to crush us.

No, the conservatives argue that the violent institutions of government should have wide and unchecked powers. And also, they've advocated this elsewhere: in Haiti, Chile and various other places. So their rhetoric is far from the reality.


We argeue for individuality, not against it.

No you don't. The right wing "induviduality" is total nonsense, because they advocate polices and worship institutions, like the military, business firm, and the church and the patrhical family, which are completely non-induvidualistic and demand conformity, and seek to regiment the masses.

The churhc provides morality.

I see no truth to this statement: the church is a man-made institution, not guided by any absolute morality. Furthermore, the conservatives simply use religion and fundamentalism to foster irrational attidutes of conformity to authority, and they create mindless slogans like "flIp-fLop", "SUpport the troop!z!", "godless commie!", "fRee-marketz magics" in order to stifle dissent to the abusive nature of conservative policies abroad and at home.

There is natural law to consider. Power stems from three sources: God, People, and Natural Law.

Elementary morality stems from human nature. We all beleive in elementary moral values, because I believe they are an innate human faculty, but what is crucial is that our perception of the world and our interests are manipulated by power and elite institutions such as corporations which control the media.
 
Yeah, its called tyranny, and violating human rights.

Very much arguable. I mean, human rights also include wide positive rights, which are violated in capitalist systems.

But please, articulate your arguement in greater lenght so I can debate on the points.
 
Back
Top Bottom