Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#35106 - 02/04/10 08:35 AM Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
On a scale of one to ten, with one being anarchy, five being democratic republic, and ten being totalitarianism, where would you place yourself in terms of your political preferences if you could wave a magic wand and make the world in your image?

I would be at five. What I want most from the vast majority of human beings is that they leave me alone. So I value cops who stop criminals from messing with me, and I value soldiers who stop foreigners from messing with me, and I value a government that largely doesn't mess with me, since I'm neither a criminal nor a foreign spy.

How about you?
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35107 - 02/04/10 08:44 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
If it was made in MY image... hell, I'd go all the way for a Satanic Dictatorship with me as its leader, reopen the arenas and start up the games. The first ones I would send in for gladiatorial combat would be the wannabe part/time Satanists. Slave labor camps would already be in the process of construction. Relax... I'd get to the rest of you soon.

But being that I'm a realist, centrism is the most uniquely advantageous position, since you can adjust the amount of government to be either liberal or conservative as the economic and political landscapes demand. And, while ANY form of government is bound to have is detractors, a centrist position allows you to skew popular opinion most easily so that whatever the political climate, you can warp things so that statistically, you are the people's champion.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35113 - 02/04/10 12:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A poor choice of options but I'll humor you.

10 of course; like Frank said: "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere"

5 is the system for wussies, a bit like the McDonalds of political options.

1 is great if you want to get nowhere.

D.

Top
#35117 - 02/04/10 12:13 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Anarchism is one of those things that sounds nice but because of human nature I don't believe it works.

When it comes to the other two alternatives it all depends on what kind of ideology that society subscribes to in general. Both totalitarian regimes and democratic ones can be either good or bad. It depends on who is in power and what ideas society is built upon.

Top
#35140 - 02/05/10 09:08 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Quote:
I would be at five. What I want most from the vast majority of human beings is that they leave me alone. So I value cops who stop criminals from messing with me, and I value soldiers who stop foreigners from messing with me, and I value a government that largely doesn't mess with me, since I'm neither a criminal nor a foreign spy.


On your scale, you may want to be closer to a three.

As MawrinSkel noted, a lot of people want to be told what to do. The flip side of that is that people in government tend to want to creep into your life more and more ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#35164 - 02/06/10 02:37 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach

Would you like a country where everyone was drafted into the military and stayed in the military all their lives, so that all work was done by soldiers and the only differentiators were specialty and rank?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWS9PiXekE

Had to do it.

I'm caught between either three or 7-8. I want to be left alone, but I think other people need to be leashed.

Top
#35327 - 02/09/10 03:57 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: EvilDjinn]
Thorn Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/08/10
Posts: 7
I am mostly in agreement with MawhrinSkel. For all the praise of "democracy, holy democracy," it is a lie. Where has democracy gotten America? *silence...*

Leadership is what counts, strong, solid leadership. Respectfully, Jake, I don't agree with your ideas about polluting the masses and enslaving them. I think everyone should follow their leaders willingly, not because they're drugged or deluded, but because they know their leaders are right, and trust them.

Even communism, which claims pure democracy, had leaders, I mean the Russian revolution. Two leaders, largely one, Lenin, and secondly Trotsky of course. You see it in nature. The largest and strongest leads his pack, in wolves, for example. The pack follows him and trust that he knows his stuff.

I think we'll easier find one good man who knows what he's talking about than enough men for a huge senate. Politics is no longer about leading your people to happiness, it's about making money, like every other fucking thing. It's time for a change. As MawhrinSkel said, if this makes me fascist, bring it. Actually, it does, I am, and let it be known. Democracy does not work. Leadership does. We have seen both these points proven. When they really want something done, they go for leaders. The army, for example. The Catholic church. Leadership gets things done, a bunch of whining monkeys in pinstripe suits does not.

Thank you,
-Thorn

Top
#35342 - 02/09/10 06:24 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Thorn]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 764
Loc: Oslo, Norway
*Yawns*

Firstly;

Democrazy should be at 1.
Consensual genocide.
The willing eradication of the human race, death by ignorance.

Secondly;

A totalitarian rule solves nothing.
Supposedly good thing if you are on the top of it.
(I have serious doubts bout that one.)
Individualism?

Third;

Democrazy is a badly disguised totalitarian system.
Church, state, capital, party, state, capital etc.
Clever in the sense of cuttin of your head in order to cure a headache.

Fourth;

Anarchism was NOT,
is NOT,
nor will ever BE,
a system intended for practical political use.

(If someone tells you otherwise, they will turn out to be badly disguised communists/socialists.)

Anarchism is a philosophical direction, with individual choice as inspiration.
Nothing more, nothing less...

Personally I clock in at value; 11!!!

Smaller units (clans).
Leadership by merit, easily revoked.
The sworn duty of clan members to collectively hunt down and kill leaders who violates agreements or their word.

The right to vote must be earned, not automatically given.

All acts of war will be acted through confederations.

Individual responsibility for crimes will seize to exist.
The individual clan will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of members.
Every crime can be redeemed by paying a fine to the offended clan.

The ultimate punishment is expulsion from the clan.
Clanless individuals can be killed on sight without it be considered a crime.

Etc!
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#35502 - 02/12/10 12:55 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Thorn]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Thorn
I am mostly in agreement with MawhrinSkel. For all the praise of "democracy, holy democracy," it is a lie. Where has democracy gotten America? *silence...*


Nowhere because America is primarily a Republic. Democratic yes, but nothing like how, say, Athens used to be when it was Democratic. It does not even resemble that "communal ethos" that I think is the actual ideal of Communism (which did exist and does in so-called primitive societies).

Hell, when the USA was officially founded, there wasn't even a popular vote, Presidents being decided purely by the Electoral College. It was more a system of financial and intellectual elites.

Some people are drugged and deluded to begin with. They allow themselves to be and if you ask me, that's as willing as you get. There's no slave like the willing slave. Remember the credo of the Drug Addict: "I can stop at any time." They really could, if they really wanted to. But they don't, which is why they're slaves.

Top
#35582 - 02/12/10 10:15 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Woland]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Smaller units (clans).
Leadership by merit, easily revoked.
The sworn duty of clan members to collectively hunt down and kill leaders who violates agreements or their word.

The right to vote must be earned, not automatically given.

All acts of war will be acted through confederations.

Individual responsibility for crimes will seize to exist.
The individual clan will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of members.
Every crime can be redeemed by paying a fine to the offended clan.

The ultimate punishment is expulsion from the clan.
Clanless individuals can be killed on sight without it be considered a crime.

Etc!


Actually, this was the prevailing system of govt practiced by neolithic man for the better part of a half a million years. I am pretty sure man is hardwired to function this way. As you may know, this was also the system of govt practiced by your people as early as 1000 years ago.

Any system that diverges from this is doomed to failure. Our current woes can be directly linked to our abandonment of our natural form of social organization.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#35789 - 02/18/10 09:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Jake999]
Nightmare Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 58
Loc: San Antonio TX
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
If it was made in MY image... hell, I'd go all the way for a Satanic Dictatorship with me as its leader, reopen the arenas and start up the games. The first ones I would send in for gladiatorial combat would be the wannabe part/time Satanists. Slave labor camps would already be in the process of construction. Relax... I'd get to the rest of you soon.


Oh I like that one but in reality I think (If I was leader) totalitarian would work the best

No one-liners!
If you have something on your mind; look into whys, wherefores, motivations and consequences involved in your train of thought BEFORE you throw your nimble little fingers at an innocent keyboard.

Woland


Edited by Woland (02/19/10 04:34 AM)
_________________________
So can you tell me what exactly does freedom mean,
If I'm not free to be as twisted as I wanna be

Top
#35796 - 02/19/10 03:41 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Nightmare]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
I'd probably be a 3 or 4. If governments of the world finally stopped messing with each other and worked to maintain a stable and free economy, everyone would prosper and be free to live unlimited. I would not want any kind of totalitarianism, it makes me happy to know that others experience the same freedom I do, and I would never want to waste my time being in charge of people. I don't care about having massive amounts of money, and I don't care a about the power. I don't have anyone I would consider a threat or enemy to my interests other than big government and dictators around the world. So smaller governments everywhere would fix this problem.
Some of the greatest times in human history yielded amazing art. That would be great to see on a whole new level.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35811 - 02/19/10 11:00 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Doomsage680
I would not want any kind of totalitarianism, it makes me happy to know that others experience the same freedom I do, and I would never want to waste my time being in charge of people.


This sounds all good but I tend to believe that while some people can deal with freedom (whatever that word means is debatable though, freedom from or freedom of and how far does it stretch etc) I think most people cant. And sure enough one can claim that a society should encourage and make those capable of the responsibility thrive while the others are doomed. Unfortunately I think the opposite would happen since the ones who wouldnt be able to deal with freedom and responsibility would be in far greater numbers. I think if everyone was given enough freedom we would live in a society that wasnt very pleasant at all.

I think this is especially true if mankind keeps moving closer to eachother in big cities. I think the big bulk of people out there needs to be governed and I think that even those who could be responsible in their own freedom would benefit from that since it keeps the mass in check so to speak.

Top
#35828 - 02/19/10 05:09 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"I think the big bulk of people out there needs to be governed"

What do you mean by this? Though the Satanic elitism on this site is somewhat ubiquitous, and I would mostly agree rightly so, what exactly is it you mean by this? That people should be highly restricted in a police state?
A free market would lead to not only less government spending but lower taxes ultimately leading to a government with little to spend money on but things like defense and law enforcement, so your perceived response of uncontrolled idiocy would be quite under control. As an example of this, I would like to cite Gary Kleck, award-winning criminologist on gun control, who discovered in 1993 that a given firearm was more likely to be used in self-defense than an assault- 3 to 5 times more likely. This may seem contrary to human nature, but it makes sense. Allowing people the ability to effectively defend themselves does not lead to widespread chaos. And a police state would, again, take a lot of time, energy, and money to run- I don't want to waste my time on it, and I certainly don't want anyone else running it. I would argue it a better use of my time and directly beneficial to me to have widespread freedom. Of course people will always kill each other. But anything less than a military state has and will have those crimes. It goes against everything in me to have any part in running people's lives. Our satanic tendencies may devalue what we perceive to be the stupid ignorant manipulated masses, but this I question too. Who cares that some people don't know what's happening in the world? They are living their lives, and their goal is clearly to do what humans and other animals biologically do- live, reproduce, and enjoy life with minimal distractions and obstacles. If you fear anything for being the cause of some unacceptable amount of initiation of force, you should fear government- the only "legitimate" source of initiating force. It has and always will exist, the only answer is how to construct and maintain one that does not infringe on individuals as much. (I believe government begins with initiating some kind of force and claiming some responsibility for something/someone)

Unless your consistency comes from a basis in fascism, I don't see how you can truly hold these beliefs without contradicting some of the very things you likely hold most dear. If you believe in the satanic principle of "Do What Thou Wilt", your true desire for self-fulfillment could never be to dominate others for power's sake. Unless your mind is clouded by insecurity and you have a need to "take back" something robbed from you as a way to feel in control.
A species does not evolve via the strongest working in collusion to oppress those less capable. The strongest will suffer from lack of competition, and the oppressed may very well rise up as they have before and take what they deserve.
We don't need more government to limit people anyway. Quite a few people limit themselves in every aspect of their lives, from religion, to accepting corrupt government, to letting other people push them around. The cause of the most dangerous people in our society is the prohibition of drugs, a black market that allows the criminal-minded a way to prosper among those you deem "responsible enough to handle freedom".

So either you're a minarchist like me or a hardline statist, depending on whether you personally enjoy power or freedom. But you must pick lest you be a hypocrite. I find power in freedom. I want to be able to do whatever I want in life, and I have no particular desire to initiate any force on anyone. I consider myself powerful when I can do what I want unobstructed. Having a gun and some law enforcement will do me just fine.

God I could go on about this all day. If you respond I might, I enjoy these kinds of debates.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35851 - 02/20/10 06:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Some clarifications. "Do what thou wilt" is a metaphysical concept at the very core of Thelema. It has had a huge influence on Satanism for sure but most people donít know what the concept is all about. It is not about personal or political freedom. It is about finding and recognizing your own true orbit so that you do not contradict your True Will so to speak. It can almost be said to be some form of determinism at times. The Will as the true movement of your Self. It is an orbit Ė a path youíre already on. You canít but do your Will but if you donít recognize what it is there will be trouble because you try to break away from the one path youíre on (go against your true nature) and the path that is the best for you (so the thought goes if everyone would do their True Will there would be no conflict).

The use of guns would be fine if they were just used for self-defence but they arenít. With more guns more people are shot dead and not just those who deserve it but overall. And more guns mean more accidents with a fatal ending. I donít think just anyone should be allowed to carry a gun because in the end I donít think most can control or use it wisely. And even if most could, a less amount of guns in regular peopleís homes would mean less amount of guns for the criminals as well. This is a fact. Compare Sweden to the US for instance. We really donít have problems with gunfire at all. It really is very rare. Hence no need to defend oneself with gunfire either. More guns means more people dead, in self defence or not and it leads to a more dangerous violent world. I can see why people in the cities in the US get guns. Maybe you need them there but I have a different view since the amount of guns are so low in Sweden there is no need for defence by means of gunfire. I think that is to be preferred donít you?

I donít think people can handle freedom on a big scale. Individuals may but groups do not. We see this everyday in the big cities because thatís where the problems are worst. When lots of people live on top of each other people canít seem to respect others freedoms and they cant take responsibility for their own actions either. So I believe if one gives to much freedom to to many people the world would become worse for people like me, who Id like to think can handle my own freedoms. Therefore Id rather see the masses more controlled and kept in check if that means my life would get better because of lower crime rates for example. I would easily choose a political system that restricts people more if that meant the risk of me getting attacked or killed or robbed was less rather than have more people get freedoms, we get less policemen out there and more people could abuse their freedoms (which would mean more negativity for me). I believe in a strong police force for instant and I am against the leftist views (at least Swedish leftist) that we should spend less on the police. I would like to clarify that I donít by this mean people should have no freedom at all. Far from it. I do believe however that we do need more governing of _certain aspects_ of living in a country than we maybe have today.

 Quote:
They are living their lives, and their goal is clearly to do what humans and other animals biologically do- live, reproduce, and enjoy life with minimal distractions and obstacles.


Yes, minimal distractions and obstacles. I think that people with a lot of freedom tend to misuse it and this leads to them intruding on other peopleís freedoms (hence your need to own a gun for example). This would be, and is, chaotic. So freedom in some way leads to oppression, not by the state, but by other individuals because of fear and violence between individuals and groups. I would rather have an orderly rule that maybe infringe on the freedom of the masses but made the country more safe to live in. Iím not saying I want a government that is militaristic, who doesnít let people do anything but work as slaves for them etc. I just think to much individual freedom will be, and is, misused and in the end it wonít benefit people. Satanism does include thinking like this. Sure a Satanist appreciates and valued his own freedoms but also realizes that the mass will have to be governed. There will always be ruler and the ruled and it pretty much has to be. To give everyone the same freedoms and the same benefits would create chaos.
I have already discussed the free market and why I think it is bad for the environment for example. Where money and success means more than living in a healthy natural environment. That is not something I support. I donít want a totally controlled market but also not a totally free one. But this has already been discussed elsewhere on this forum so I donít wish to repeating myself here. If youíre interested check out my other posts.

 Quote:
Unless your consistency comes from a basis in fascism, I don't see how you can truly hold these beliefs without contradicting some of the very things you likely hold most dear. If you believe in the satanic principle of "Do What Thou Wilt", your true desire for self-fulfillment could never be to dominate others for power's sake. Unless your mind is clouded by insecurity and you have a need to "take back" something robbed from you as a way to feel in control.


Iím not saying ďmy desire for self-fulfillment is to dominate others for power's sakeĒ but why couldnít it be? Just curious. It all depends on if we are to respect every mans opinion to do what he wants (realize the difference between this, want or desire, and Thelemas view on True Will Ė from which your quote is taken) or if we think that some restrictions are needed for a society to work.

I, like you, donít wish to rule others. I wouldnít be the right person for that and I donít want to do it. My desire is to be an artist and only do what I find enjoyable and not let others infringe in my life in a negative way. That is my goal. Nothing more, nothing less.

 Quote:
A species does not evolve via the strongest working in collusion to oppress those less capable. The strongest will suffer from lack of competition, and the oppressed may very well rise up as they have before and take what they deserve.


For sure. I donít want a static society Ė far from it. It needs to be dynamic. But I also strongly believe in hierarchy and meritocracy. I think that the strongest doesnít need to oppress others (I never said I wanted that) but they do need to govern them. But of course the able should be able to rise to the levels they deserve and desire just like the unable should be let down the ladder in favor of those who are better. I do think there is a danger in making everyone and everything to equal. Humans are herd animals and we do need leaders and followers (there are of course exceptions but in general this applies to humans in group Ė and we do tend to seek groups to join).

 Quote:
So either you're a minarchist like me or a hardline statist, depending on whether you personally enjoy power or freedom. But you must pick lest you be a hypocrite. I find power in freedom. I want to be able to do whatever I want in life, and I have no particular desire to initiate any force on anyone. I consider myself powerful when I can do what I want unobstructed. Having a gun and some law enforcement will do me just fine.


Well there is a golden middle path. One does not have to choose between minarchism and hardline statism. Im not for either extreme (sorry to disappoint). Its all good that you donít feel a need to initiate any force on anyone else but unfortunately not everyone is like you and thatís why we need, for example a strong police force to govern those who do want to force themselves on others. Or those who wants to do what they want unobstructed but doesnít care if they walk over a few innocents in the process.

Top
Page 1 of 7 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.