Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#1,378
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.†- Winston Churchill
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" — Isaac Asimov
"What does the shoemaker know of the affairs of the state?" - Catherine the Great (thanks DM)
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^][v]#26,763
Catherine the Great said the third one. One of my favorite quotes.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,773
@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Thanks, edited. For some reason Google returns nothing when I searched the quote. I knew it was some woman, but nothing else. Searches with her name in it still return nothing relevant.
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,779
@previous (A)
My pleasure. I personally am anti-democracy. Are you?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,788
The purpose of democracy isn't, so far as I understand it, to pick the best leaders, but to avoid the worst. Most people, for example, would not vote a psychopathic murderer into office, but in a Monarchy or military junta, or some other form of government, there is no protection against that, nor is there a way to peacefully get rid of a leader that is abusing the people.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 9 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,790
@26,779 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Yes, I prefer a libertarian nation with a benevolent dictator to keep things in order.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,792
@26,788 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That is a valid point. I have never thought about it that way. Okay so, what if there is a Monarch, but a Constitution as well, that says that the people can and must revolt if he becomes an evil dictator?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,808
> Most people, for example, would not vote a psychopathic murderer into office
No, just someone that will start a multi-trillion dollar war that will get tens of thousands killed. > but in a Monarchy or military junta, or some other form of government, there is no protection against that
An armed populace. A small order that keeps the peace could exist, and if they fuck up, they could be killed. > nor is there a way to peacefully get rid of a leader that is abusing the people.
When you make peaceful resolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,809
@26,792 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
That's all well and good, as long as the king has no authority to dissolve the legislative body or annul the constitution (as monarchs have done several times in history). The problem with that is, why have a limited monarch in addition to the legislature, and how would that be significantly different from having a Prime Minister or President?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,830
@26,808 (A) > No, just someone that will start a multi-trillion dollar war that will get tens of thousands killed.
Leaders starting costly wars under dubious pretenses is not a feature unique to democracy. That's been happening since the beginning of human history, so faulting democracy for not permanently fixing a timeless problem is a bit foolish.
> An armed populace. A small order that keeps the peace could exist, and if they fuck up, they could be killed.
So there will be a group of people who, if they can't handle the situation, will be executed by the people they failed to defend (even if their failure was not their fault)? No sane person would take that job.
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,836
@26,809 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
IT would not really. I am a Monarchist, and want a single, authoritarian leader. But I admit, I do not know how to prevent him or her from becoming a dictator.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,849
@previous (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
All governments evolve into either republics or oligarchies, anyway. Only political science majors with a severe case of USI go into further detail.
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,854
> >No, just someone that will start a multi-trillion dollar war that will get tens of thousands killed. > Leaders starting costly wars under dubious pretenses is not a feature unique to democracy. That's been happening since the beginning of human history, so faulting democracy for not permanently fixing a timeless problem is a bit foolish.
You said that one redeeming feature of democracy is that it prevents mass murderers- it doesn't. It happens in other systems as well, I'm aware, and I never said otherwise.
> >An armed populace. A small order that keeps the peace could exist, and if they fuck up, they could be killed. > So there will be a group of people who, if they can't handle the situation, will be executed by the people they failed to defend (even if their failure was not their fault)? No sane person would take that job.
It'd work out. They'd have to fuck up real bad, on purpose to have people go out of their way to execute them (starting wars, overtaxing). If they simply sucked at fixing things they'd most likely just be kicked out.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,857
@26,836 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
That's the problem. A monarchy is only as good as its leader, and a democracy is only as good as its voters. There's no perfect system (that I know of), so we have to go with the best form of government (which seems to be modern Western democratic republics).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,863
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,866
@26,857 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I understand. But, allow me to ask, why do you believe that western democratic republics are the est form of government? I offer a counter-example: the Pax Romana, wherein, though there was a Senate, nevertheless were run by Emperors revered as gods.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,869
@26,854 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
It's a simple hierarchy of power.
Law > Ruler > People = Republic.
Ruler > Law > People = Oligarchy.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,884
@26,866 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Rome had slaves and celebrated public executions. While for some people it was a good time to live, for others it was the worst. I don't think the same could be said of modern governments, or at least not to the same extent. Secondly, Pax Romana lasted around 200 years, and was preceded and followed by extreme turmoil. America has been around for 250 years and (aside from the civil war and possibly the great depression) has never been in significant fear of falling apart.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,888
> has never been in significant fear of falling apart.
Well, with the exception of the Civil War, which was the deadliest war ever fought by the U.S. ever, sure.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,889
@26,856 (A) > You said that one redeeming feature of democracy is that it prevents mass murderers- it doesn't. It happens in other systems as well, I'm aware, and I never said otherwise.
George Bush was not a mass-murderer.
> It'd work out. They'd have to fuck up real bad, on purpose to have people go out of their way to execute them (starting wars, overtaxing). If they simply sucked at fixing things they'd most likely just be kicked out.
Violence should never be the default solution to a problem.
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,892
@26,884 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That is a good point. But, consider this. The USA, which could indeed be said to be the best, shining example of a western democratic republic (and I agree that it is), had slavery, Japanese internment camps, still has the death penalty, etc. I guess I am arguing that, under Pax Romana, the most amount of people had the best possible life. I think the USA today is like that, too, but I do not think it is all that much better than under the good Caesars.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,894
@26,888 (D) > (aside from the civil war and possibly the great depression) > aside from the civil war
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,895
@26,888 (D)
Notice that I preceded that phrase with >(aside from the civil war)...
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,907
@26,779 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0) > My pleasure. I personally am anti-democracy.
Surprise surprise.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,911
@26,892 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0)
Yes, perhaps they did, but Pax Romana had a limited lifespan, and I doubt you could find many rulers today who could fill in the post of Caesar without severely overstepping their bounds very quickly.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,927
@26,892 (Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0) > That is a good point. But, consider this. The USA, which could indeed be said to be the best, shining example of a western democratic republic (and I agree that it is), had slavery, Japanese internment camps, still has the death penalty, etc. I guess I am arguing that, under Pax Romana, the most amount of people had the best possible life.
The Romans still had the death penalty, slavery was still an accepted institution, and they still had a massive amount of urban poor on grain allotments even during Rome's "golden age".
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,936
@previous (H)
I agree. The USA and Rome are not that different.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,938
> >You said that one redeeming feature of democracy is that it prevents mass murderers- it doesn't. It happens in other systems as well, I'm aware, and I never said otherwise. > George Bush was not a mass-murderer.
Depends on how you define it. When someone causes the deaths of thousands, I personally chose to call them a mass-murderer. Call me crazy.
> >It'd work out. They'd have to fuck up real bad, on purpose to have people go out of their way to execute them (starting wars, overtaxing). If they simply sucked at fixing things they'd most likely just be kicked out. > Violence should never be the default solution to a problem.
Violence motivates. If leaders don't have to worry about it, then they will do much worse like starting violent wars, creating poverty which causes violence, abusing the populous through voilent police, and imprisoning 1% of the population (like the US). A few bodies is nothing compared to a nation oppressed.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,939
@26,894 (F)
Yeah, but that's a pretty big event. That's like saying:
> Hiroshima, with the exception of everything that happened after 1945, hasn't changed much.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,941
nvm this post
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
newfriend joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,953
Constitutional authority is the most important feature, more than the exact nature of the head of state.
newfriend double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,956
@26,938 (A)
You are crazy. Your attempt to dilute the definition of murder will not be tolerated.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 56 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,959
@26,938 (A) > Depends on how you define it. When someone causes the deaths of thousands, I personally chose to call them a mass-murderer. Call me crazy.
So every military general is a mass-murderer. Okay, well I disagree.
> Violence motivates.
I absolutely agree. I just think it's the wrong motivational tool to use if there are other options.
> If leaders don't have to worry about it...
If a leader thought "I better do what the people want or I will be publicly executed", then he'd live in constant fear of making a decision, lest some people disagree. I don't want my rulers living in constant fear of death from those he is governing. Call me crazy.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,963
@26,956 (newfriend)
No, crazy is pretending that doing something in an indirect fashion absolves you of responsibility. He caused the deaths.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,968
> So every military general is a mass-murderer.
Yes. Some more justified than others. > Okay, well I disagree.
We have different definitions, I don't think we are actually disagreeing on any facts here. > >Violence motivates. > I absolutely agree. I just think it's the wrong motivational tool to use if there are other options.
> >If leaders don't have to worry about it... > If a leader thought "I better do what the people want or I will be publicly executed", then he'd live in constant fear of making a decision, lest some people disagree. I don't want my rulers living in constant fear of death from those he is governing. Call me crazy.
Without that fear people make corrupt decisions. You have to piss off a lot of people to get enough force to go against your military.
newfriend replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^][v]#26,969
@26,963 (A)
Did I say he is not indirectly responsible? No.
Did I day he was not a murderer? Yes.
Please cease lying.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#26,977
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Why not cp.us? This is what most parties do.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#26,984
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I thought it would be ".su".
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#26,996
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Who staffs all those organizations? Citizens. Dehumanizing
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,000
@26,968 (A) > We have different definitions, I don't think we are actually disagreeing on any facts here.
I agree. You define "mass-murderer" as anyone who is responsible for the deaths of many. I define it as anyone who is directly and, with malicious intent, responsible for the unjust deaths of many innocent people.
> Without that fear people make corrupt decisions.
Ok.
> You have to piss off a lot of people to get enough force to go against your military.
So the military should constantly be used as a tool of the politicians against the citizens instead of a tool to defend the citizens? I disagree. I don't want to live in that climate of fear.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,004
Depressionmanâ„¢ !!fNJHcIUn0 replied with this 15 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,014
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
coup It is a French word. The p is silent.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,042
@27,004 (A)
No, they are not. Please stop abusing the English language.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,050
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
.coop is for Co-operatives only. Non Co-ops cannot get a .coop domain.
why aren't you the admin yet? Work your way up, bud, and fix this problem.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,056
@27,042 (I)
The definition Google fetched with its "define" feature, via Princeton's Dictionary gave the following definitions:
for murder: > kill intentionally and with premeditation
for kill: > cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly;
Bush caused those people to die. He did so intentionally. Therefor, by definition he is a murderer.
By going against the definition, you are the one abusing the language. I am simply using the word correctly.
Or do you claim your definition is more accurate than a Ivy League university's?
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,067
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
I worked in Hollywood a few years back, attended a meeting just one time to check it out, and could never get a job after that.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,068
@27,056 (A)
You can not read. The definition agrees with me.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,071
@previous (I)
Bush caused people to die. That matches the definition for kill. he definition for murder is that he killed people, which by definition he did.
You mad?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,081
@previous (A)
LOL. I propose a reading comprehension test before being allowed to post here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,087
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,089
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Yes, it is. I was just curious is all.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,101
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.) > (he was a socialist, and thats basically communism to the extreme)
You've got that backwards. Communism is an extreme form of socialism.
Also, Hitler hated communists.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#27,108
> Also, Hitler hated communists.
Hitler was a meth addicted, Christian, anti-semite. At least by your standards he wasn't a mass murderer.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#27,114
@previous (A)
He was (as far as I know) probably not a christian, though he did use Christianity to manipulate people.
Also, by my definition he was a mass-murderer. Try again.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#27,117
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
Certainly, but you mixed up the order of the original post. Communism is a subset of Socialism; Socialism is not a subset of Communism.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#27,118
> He was (as far as I know) probably not a christian http://popeorhitler.com/ > Also, by my definition he was a mass-murderer. Try again. > I agree. You define "mass-murderer" as anyone who is responsible for the deaths of many. I define it as anyone who is directly and, with malicious intent, responsible for the unjust deaths of many innocent people.
You contradict yourself.
He was not "directly" responsible, he merely ordered people to kill them. Which is indirect.
And if giving an order to kill people is mass murder, than Bush is a mass-murder too.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#27,123
@previous (A)
He explicitly ordered the Jews to be executed. That's pretty direct.
> And if giving an order to kill people is mass murder, than Bush is a mass-murder too.
George Bush (with the near-unanimous consent of Congress) authorized military force against the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. Nowhere did he explicitly demand the deaths of anyone.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#27,133
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
No problem. I understand.