Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#35852 - 02/20/10 06:45 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
This is a fact. Compare Sweden to the US for instance. We really don’t 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.

You are forgetting one thing here.
The general way of thinking and acting differs from the one in Sweden (or other European countries). In Europe there are organisations people can use as a "back-up" when having lost property. In Europe there are organisations and funds or health-care and such, which are totally lacking in the US.

Small things which add up to the fact you can't compare it.
Maybe you should check out Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The legalization of guns doesn't imply the rates of deaths by gunfire are raising.

 Quote:
I don’t think people can handle freedom on a big scale. Individuals may but groups do not. We see this everyday in the big cities because that’s where the problems are worst. When lots of people live on top of each other people can’t seem to respect others freedoms and they cant take responsibility for their own actions either.

I doubt it, people seem to forget many things related to freedom or actions they can undertake. It is not the "handling with freedom" forming a problem, it is the "what to do with it".


 Quote:
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.

Free market implies the introduction of the aspect called "competition" on economical level. While it has some positive aspects there also are a few lesser ones as well.
When investigating the economy a person would soon notice companies which are being closely related (not to say, totally sponsored) to a government. These companies (most of the time) are too economically weak to be interesting for a free market.
Yet, some of the services they provide are necesarry to maintain a healthy state/economy. Taking these away would result in a chain reaction in which many companies will collapse.

An example of such a company might be: the postal service.


To get back on the original topic; if I had the choice then I would, like Jake, go for the totalitarian regime with me on top of it. Taking a more realistic approach I wouldn't very much care since I have the nasty ability to adapt. I am happy in the political situation I am residing now.


Edited by Dimitri (02/20/10 06:58 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35853 - 02/20/10 08:03 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dimitri]
Nightmare Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 58
Loc: San Antonio TX
The philosophy of power says all that needs to be said. A clan based governing type where the strong and powerful lead. with their hordes of followers, the weak they have proven their power to, those who will submit to a stronger man may live as a slave or die attempting to regain his own freedom. Granted the number of people would decrease but who says that is a bad thing? people need to be governed yes but not by these weak-minded puppets we put into power for our government. they need to be shown how the human mind is set up, our natural way to live is a clan like structure where leadership is unstable and likely to change with each new generation maturing, and ultimately overpowering the last. its mankind's natural way and should be followed. we (humans) are already the best animal we have proven it bears that attack are killed, dogs that bite are killed, and lions that escape from their cage are killed all because man is strong and he said they should die. this should apply to man as well, the strong should dominate and the weak should submit to them its the natural order of things.

Edited by Nightmare (02/20/10 08:05 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling error
_________________________
So can you tell me what exactly does freedom mean,
If I'm not free to be as twisted as I wanna be

Top
#35856 - 02/20/10 09:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Nightmare]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
The philosophy of power says all that needs to be said. A clan based governing type where the strong and powerful lead. with their hordes of followers, the weak they have proven their power to, those who will submit to a stronger man may live as a slave or die attempting to regain his own freedom.

I disagree with the way you are putting it.
The qualities of a leader are a bit more expanded then "being powerful and strong". A leader should have the charisma to bind people to him/her, he or she must have the intellectual capabilities to make the "right" (for the greater mass) decisions,...

Calling yourself a leader or trying to profilate yourself as a leader is one thing, being a leader is a whole different matter and much harder then it would seem on first sight.

 Quote:
people need to be governed yes but not by these weak-minded puppets we put into power for our government. they need to be shown how the human mind is set up, our natural way to live is a clan like structure where leadership is unstable and likely to change with each new generation maturing, and ultimately overpowering the last.

Weak-minded people?
I might disagree with most decisions politicians make and even hate certain laws/ duties I have to obey or perform this date. But when taking a look on the political side, these regulations, laws and duties are a must to perform actions to maintain a healthy state on long-term. Every action politicians made has been heavily debated, investigated and tested before being released on society (or being refused to release on..).

It is not because I disagree with certain actions and laws that I automatically label then "weak-minded". There is a reason why they are in control.

Modern problem is the pleasing of "minorities".


Edited by Dimitri (02/20/10 09:59 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35865 - 02/20/10 05:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri:

 Quote:
You are forgetting one thing here.
The general way of thinking and acting differs from the one in Sweden (or other European countries). In Europe there are organisations people can use as a "back-up" when having lost property. In Europe there are organisations and funds or health-care and such, which are totally lacking in the US.

Small things which add up to the fact you can't compare it.
Maybe you should check out Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The legalization of guns doesn't imply the rates of deaths by gunfire are raising.


I don’t quite understand what you wrote in the first part of what I quote above have to do with legalization of guns. Please specify.
I have seen Bowling for Columbine but it was years and years ago. From what I remember it showed how many murders (by guns or just in general I cant remember) that differed in two cities really close to each other but one in the US and one in Canada. The difference was huge and the US city had loads and loads of more cases of fatal violence. But as I said it was a long time since I saw it. It is unfortunate that Michael Moore has been known to bend reality in his favor at times. It makes even the more truthful things he says mean less to more people.

 Quote:
I doubt it, people seem to forget many things related to freedom or actions they can undertake. It is not the "handling with freedom" forming a problem, it is the "what to do with it".


Whatever the reason there is a problem with people and freedom. I don’t believe one can give equal amounts of freedom to every individual because to many are not able to make it work in regards to society.

 Quote:

Weak-minded people?
I might disagree with most decisions politicians make and even hate certain laws/ duties I have to obey or perform this date. But when taking a look on the political side, these regulations, laws and duties are a must to perform actions to maintain a healthy state on long-term. Every action politicians made has been heavily debated, investigated and tested before being released on society (or being refused to release on..).


I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are things in politics that may not please me personally but is required to make a whole country work properly. Thinking long term is essential. This is also how I recognize intellectual egoism. The intellectual egoist tends to be one who understands that h acts in self interest but also realize that he must take into account the whole picture (including long term thinking of course). The other side of the coin is the egoist who doesn’t think long term and his actions of self interest seems to, in the long run, be counter productive.
I for one also do not believe that there is one way and one way only to govern a country. While I do believe some are better than others I’m pretty sure there are several systems that work if enough energy is put into it. And whoever the politician I believe if there is one thing most politicians are not its being weak-minded. I probably cant even begin to imagine the stress they put themselves through mentally by being in the position they are.

 Quote:

Modern problem is the pleasing of "minorities".


Words of truth my friend. In Sweden this is very clear. To many of the politicians are to concerned with different minorities that the big masses start to react to it negatively. They must start to realize that you cant please everyone and in a democratic society popularity is what is the basis of political power so if they loose the mass they loose the power as well.

Top
#35869 - 02/20/10 10:07 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
To help further my argument that people can "handle" freedom using gun control, I found this. This should shed light and counter the presented argument of Sweden as an example of successful gun control.


In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

As for the non-criminal Swiss, the saying is that everyone is his own policeman. Foreign visitors are surprised to see Swiss pedestrians always waiting at traffic lights, even when there is no traffic. The mass transit systems successfully depends on voluntary payment.

Clinard infers that strong central governments weaken citizen initiative and individual responsibility. He concludes: Communities or cities that wish to prevent crime should encourage greater political decentralisation by developing small government units and encouraging citizen responsibility for obedience to the law and crime control."

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

That's quite a bit of quote, so that's all for now.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35884 - 02/21/10 03:53 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I don’t quite understand what you wrote in the first part of what I quote above have to do with legalization of guns. Please specify.

The only thing I am pointing out, is the difference in thinking.
An European citizen thinks differently then a Chinese, Russian, American,..
It has to do with the influences around the person. It has to do with the government of the country, censorship and social influences from media, persons around you,...
These factors differ from country to country, otherwise we wouldn't be able to stereotype certain people like:
- the French
- the Brits
- ...


Edited by Dimitri (02/21/10 03:53 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35894 - 02/21/10 08:16 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I tend to resent and resist other people’s attempts to impose themselves on my liberties and my right to define myself, according to my standards and the standards I wish to adhere to. I am opposed to totalitarian doctrines and societies.

A herd of cats, rather than a column of marching SS is my ideal sort of society.

I don’t believe in the iron laws of history and I find the idea of inevitable class conflict and the necessary rise of a classless society to be rather ridiculous and impossible to attain given the examples we have at our disposal. The bureaucracy, in my opinion, generally becomes the reigning class in a so called “classless society.”

I do not agree that the individual and his or her freedoms must be somehow subsumed under the overwhelming power of the state. I don’t appreciate doctrines which call for obedience to The Leader, or The Party in order to preserve the future greatness of the nation.

I am pragmatic and realise that my society seems to be largely run and regulated by elite corporate and administrative interests. To resort to some form of anarchy in order to break this system of power apart seems to me to be ridiculous. If you can’t beat em, join em.

I am to a certain extent dependent on the society I live in and as a result I need to play ball in order to get what I want. I would, however, like minimal intervention by the government in my affairs.

I see myself at 5 on the Baron’s political spectrum.

Top
#35907 - 02/22/10 05:05 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I have weighed in on this in the past, but I will sum up my political position in a nutshell here:
I think the functions of government..the necessary ones that people need, such as public transportation, protection, medical services, emergency services etc should be absorbed by the free market. All services on a subscription basis.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35970 - 02/26/10 12:59 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
seed Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/03/09
Posts: 7
When social wealth is concerned anarchism is much healthier than anarchic fascism, fascist anarchism, and fascism is much healthier than both.
Its naturally accepted by allh, that for an ideal long lasting anarchism to take place there has to be space for rotation, convenience of the parts of the oligarchy, and stability of positions and ranks (the performers enhance or disgust). This is the way anarchism balances power, which in other past circumstances, when not applied, it has resolved in dethronements, rebellions, and state failures (not that technology can’t influence the present facts).
When anarchism mixes with fascism, the rotation processes gets obstructed by the inadaptability of the non-desired groups. This obstruction will depend on the nature of the fascist reasons; decreasing in strength in this order: race, specie, religion, and culture. Been race and specie, the most obstructive, since by birth a person can be denied the rights of professional competitiveness. For example a born angel can be denied some right just because he was not born a demon; very different from religion, culture, or money, where by changing habits or gaining a few dollars the person becomes acceptable.
Not that it can’t be sustained, but in anarchic fascism, the undesired group will not feel or be part of the governing authorities, causing group opposition; different from anarchism alone, were the reasons for been less advantage is professional competition, and causes independent opposition (the majority wants the option for the position, not the position; that is the work of self capacity).
Fascism alone is the most productive and wealthier. Fascism alone doesn’t look for nothing else than the well being of a group of peers. What can be wrong about that?
It should be stated that fascism has parameters. A fascist group has a range of what can, and what can’t be accepted (The beauty, the cutie, the normal, the ugly, and the unacceptable detestable). Christians, Jews, Satanic, Buddhist, racist groups, evolutionist, Muslims, Atheist, anti-racial pro-mixture groups are all fascist. Among fascist groups: Christians are the most intolerant, among the most tolerant are the Satanic.
Not been fascist propose an erroneous equation predestined to be temporal. By indiscriminately accepting different groups, the playground is set for an increasingly systematical competition, in which every group in order to survive will work towards power. In the past, this imposition over the variant spectrum of groups was accepted through an anarchical imposition, made by a group that had the brilliant idea of obligating all groups to live together by force of state law.
By the law of the pyramid the larger group was the bottom; by convenience laws it was better an opportunity to compete than staying at the bottom; by the laws of discretion it was better to say: “I’m free”, than saying: “I’m partially free, now I’m stronger to make it permanent”. The stronger fascist believes are rooted deep into complex systems of thought that exist because the reasons exist. This reasons will permute through history until the strongest and most advanced group gets rid of the unacceptable detestable. Even gentle human Jesus, pretending to create a balance in the universe, accepted that the only way of reaching an understanding between fascist reasons was through the genocidal annihilation of the unacceptable detestable.
Loyal and sentimental as acceptance of all groups sounds, in real practice, this option is nothing but an unreal dream, which only considers: present, personal, and temporal facts; a group who doesn’t question the whys; the mammal that sucks the milk and stings the breast.
_________________________
Francis Hutchinson, An Historical Essay Concerning Witchcraft (London, 1718)

Top
#36881 - 03/22/10 12:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
This is tougher than it initially seems because I want a system that is advantageous for me to live in, yet good enough to account for human nature and the lowest common denominator. I would want to live in the freest society possible. A free market, so I could get ahead on my own merit without being treated as though I owed my inferiors something for the crime of being better. A socially free society, so I could live the lifestyle I wanted without being persecuted for the crime of being different.

On the other hand, I recognize that the vast majority of human beings are idiots and not only need to be herded like cattle, but WANT to be. People generally think that any given action should either be mandatory or prohibited, and cannot comprehend freedom as a viable or desirable option. A free society would scare people because they wouldn't know what to do without someone to tell them.

As ideal as a dictatorship in which I am the dictator sounds, it's not really likely to happen. If I were the leader, or I could choose the type of society I wanted to live in, I would pick minarchy (about a 2 or maybe a 3). The extent of the government's power would be police and military, and only acts of unwanted violence would be considered crimes. If people want to be enslaved, they can find some group (work, church, fashion) separate from government to do it for them. As ideal as this seems to me, the downside is that it's not sustainable. The masses seem to have a compulsive need to pass their opinions into laws.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37057 - 03/26/10 05:14 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: XiaoGui17]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
I haven’t a favourite. To be fair the Nazi’s have always been a firm favourite in my mind. Not so much for their ideals, but more for the fact that it was a potential utopia corrupted.
The theories concerning euthanasia and Eugenics had some validity, but, in the cold hard light of day, lacked any sense of moral centre.

The idea that one man had such sway is also quite appealing to one as egotistical as myself, but, history speaks volumes when concerned with those that have followed such a path. Few are cleared of their crimes, and even fewer are venerated for their actions.

If I were to live in any society as a mere “civilian” (holding no powers/rights over my fellow man), I would unquestionably be in favour of a Democracy.

If on the other hand, if I could hold any position in a society of my making, I would be a fool to consider myself anything less than Emperor.

Let’s face it; democracy has its place...when there are lots of people that have their say. But when it comes down to what “I” want, fuck the people. In a democracy, many people get “kinda” what they want. In a totalitarian state, “I” always get what I want.

As for the matter of Anarchy, the less said the better. It’s a combination of Fascism and Communism. There would be those that would consider the fact that all social stature had been abolished as a sign that equality ruled. Mean while, there would be those that viewed the power vacuum as an opportunity for the strong to take control. So the term “equal” would never be more oxymoronic, as no one would protect the weak.

Humanity needs some kind of order...I would argue that all forms of government rule (national rule) are transitory; in the sense that nothing is forever. But, Anarchism is simply the stopgap between transient ideologies. Ergo, it is less than an Ideology. More of a space filler between regimes.


Edited by Room 101 (03/26/10 05:17 PM)
Edit Reason: Fat Hands
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#37094 - 03/27/10 06:07 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Room 101]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Room 101

Let’s face it; democracy has its place...when there are lots of people that have their say. But when it comes down to what “I” want, fuck the people. In a democracy, many people get “kinda” what they want. In a totalitarian state, “I” always get what I want.


I would argue that if you were to have power in a totalitarian state with that philosophy in mind your end would probably be rather violent. I think it is of utter importance in a well functioning totalitarian state (and democratic as well) so not piss off the people.

Its like the always occuring debate on egoism. I look down on people who think egoism is somehow about only doing what you feel at the moment - following every whim - and not caring at al about others. Step over bodies to achieve what you want basically. True egoism to me would be a non-short sightet egoism. We have to always take into account what others think and do and therefore to get what we want and live good long term has to involve treating othe rpeople good even if our own immediate needs will have to be put aside.

This goes for the ruling of a country as well. Just because one has total power at the moment doesnt mean its wise to do whatever one wants because in the end it will most often end with not getting what one wants.

I think I could live and thrive in both a democracy and a totalitarian state. As I said before it depends on the ideology that rules these states. It can eithe rbe really horrible or really good (both versions). Totalitarian states doesnt always mean suppressing the people. I do however believe that anarchy is to idealistic in its view on humans. I dont think such a system would work unfortunately. Its a good though in theory but if it cant be applied in practice in a good way it isnt really all that good.

Top
#37098 - 03/27/10 11:25 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
My government would provide basic services such as roads, schools and national security but would generally leave people the fuck alone.

I highly recommend a book by Peter McWilliams called “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society.” His premise is that adults should be able to do with themselves and their property whatever they choose, as long as they don’t physically harm others or their property. Thus, he argues against the criminalization of such things as drugs, prostitution, sodomy and gambling.

Unfortunately this idea is largely a pipe dream, shot down by the unwashed masses who insist that morality can be legislated. Oh well…
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#37141 - 03/30/10 03:29 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: William Wright]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Many seem to be confused about freedom and tie several things together with it that aren't really part of it. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want or need to. That is it. As such, freedom isn't dependent upon or restricted by any form of government. If you have the ability to do whatever you want or need to, you can. The amount of freedom you have in a democracy or a totalitarian regime is identical. The eventual cost of an act or the severity of that cost has got nothing to do with your initial freedom at all. Considering the cost of an act as limiting to your freedom is comparable with complaining you got to do work to get your paycheck. So, if freedom is a given, there is only one that can limit your freedom and that is you. Nobody or nothing else can limit it. As such, government has no control over you unless you allow it to have.

Anarchists uphold the idea that they need no government. I prefer the idea that we can govern ourselves, which is quite different. Mind you, when I talk about ourselves, I do not include the whole human race. One of the fundamental mistakes in the anarchist's idea is that they ignore one of the very basics in human nature. Humans, like most other (pack) animals, are hierarchical. Throw a couple of humans together and within a short amount of time a hierarchy will be established. That is government, or the state if you like, in its crudest form. The current states are nothing but a complex answer to that very fundamental need. So I'm not a big fan of anarchism because anything that ignores the basics of human nature is destined to fail.

I'm not a fan of democracy either. For one, if humans are hierarchical, how illogical is it to have a system that provides the group that is destined to be ruled to have a say about how it should be ruled? If a company would be handling that same principle, most would go bankrupt quickly. All too many would decide to increase their paychecks while lowering their working hours. Most people suffer myopic tunnel vision and as such are not equipped to be a factor in decisions beyond their personal habitat. I'd say most are even too ill-equipped to decide in their personal habitat.
Another reason I dislike democracy is because it expects all to bow down to the weakest groups. It handles some flawed principle of equality and expects all to consider others as equal and respect or tolerate them as such. Unless they oppose that very idea of course. As we know very well, equality is an illusion and does not exist in nature. If there was equality, there would be no hierarchy.
Democracy is also more and more turning into a nanny, especially noticeable in Europe, which prefers to strip people of their own responsibility and decide for them what is best. Best in the same sense of how you treat children. As if they are not able to make up their own minds and accept the consequences. It is creating a culture of weakness. I won't go too deep into my dislikes of democracy because it doesn't contribute much to the essence of this reply.

When I mention I'm a fascist, most people think I do support totalitarianism or some sort of despotic hierarchy. It is as if it is the only way they can imagine a structure in which the state has control and decides the direction. Many also dislike that idea because they fear that if they aren't the despot, they will automatically live limiting and thus restricted lives. Or such they imagine. What is most remarkable about all that is that they automatically imagine themselves to be the one governed by that system and as such readily identify themselves with the populus. As I said before, freedom is a given and we are able to govern ourselves. Who is not able to govern themselves is the populus, or mass if you like. And for them we need a tool that provides direction.

What we need is a state which has vision. A state that redefines our culture of weakness into one of strength. What creates people like us is not only genes and nurture but also culture. There is a lot of raw material out there which only needs the right factors to turn into quality material. The state should not only provide but also stimulate those factors and reward those that excel. The state does not need to be totalitarian and affect every aspect of life. It can easily leave responsibility to the individuals and have them decide their path but at the same time it should control their culture and create something sacred for the mass. Something spiritual which not only will direct them but also work as a distillation process to create more of us. Think of the UK (or another country) during WW2 and you get the idea of such an organic state where people have their direction, know their position and contribution to the whole. A society like that is what we need but instead of another country as enemy, weakness and stagnation should be our new enemies.

D.

Top
#37153 - 03/30/10 07:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Consideration of the effect of actions and the potential legal ramification of actions is an important determining factor in an individual’s conception of their sense of freedom. This is particularly true if the individual is married and has children and is the sole bread winner in the family. The threat of punishment is an effective tool in binding and limiting actions.

I would not wish to have lived in the Soviet Union during the worst years of the Stalinist era. Why? Because freedom was deeply limited by the severity of penalties; by the enormous number of people subject to penalty; and by the enlarged number of laws, or dictates, or indiscriminate punishment of certain types of individuals.

Stratification and the creation and maintenance of hierarchy are the real and continuing cornerstones of political practice and of social reality whether the political system in place is democracy, communism, fascism or whether some other political system is in place or even whether anarchy reigns.

I do not like fascism very much in its traditional form. A deep study of the prominent fascist theorists of the 1920’s and 1930’s reveals that a core principle is the notion that the individual is to subordinate him or herself to the state in order to guarantee the future survival of the nation. I do not like the Fuhrer principle. I do not like the way women, children and young people were regarded.

At this stage I tend to like responsible federal cabinet government and support a certain conception of democracy, attacked by social critics like Noam Chomsky. This is the notion that democracy is a game for elites, where the mass of humanity are excluded from real and active participation and are held in place and have their consciousness manufactured to a certain extent by necessary illusions.

Democracy may cater to the masses and encourage rampant and dangerous consumerism, but at this stage nothing is going to really change until everybody starts feeling pain of some sort. Maybe in the future we will have a new political and social arrangement in place, which will be based around pragmatism, Social Darwinism and some form of apartheid. It will have to be environmentally responsible I think and I have no idea what sort of economic arrangements will be in place, but changes will be needed for sure.

I have always felt that the Satanist is the one behind the scenes pulling the strings of those on the big stage. Never mind the leaders. They take orders and take the abuse of the public and then take the fall when required. The key is to stay in the background and pull the strings.

Top
Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.031 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.