Life - no man may place you in a situation whereby your death is likely.
Health - no man may injure you or deprive you of medicine or medical aid.
Free Speech - no man may silence you.
Free Assembly - no man may prevent peaceful public groupings upon public land.
Education - no man may deprive another of schooling.
These seem to be the prime ones - although I'm not going to guarantee that; I'm tired, and I cannot swear my thought/memory's perfect...
Going throught the UN Declaration, I disagree only with Articles 15 (nationality - I dislike that nation sate; however if such a body exists, this is needed) and 17 (property).
I am astounded, however, to read through that document again, and to see how abused so many of those seem in our world today...
It can be. It can be the best of things, and it can be the worst of things...it is a risk. It something that the best and the worst of society believe. Naturally, I consider myself the former, as everyone does...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Yes, I know. But you see, I wanted to point out, that the same thing could have been said by, example, Hitler, Stalin, or whoever.
Not to mention what Chillman said, honestly I didn't link the murderer with this, but it seems quite fitting :)/QUOTE]
And they have been seen to be evil. I can't say history is a good judge - certainly some are overly harshly dealth to, others all too softly. However, interestingly, for my success, for me to become the winner, I must gain and hold mass support. I feel this exempts me from the worse parts; to "win" I must be "good" in the people's eyes, and, then, I desire no power for myself...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Why do they have to? There are still regions without government at all, tribes in Africa, for example. There are still Monarchies. And those have been around for a very long time.
Apologies, poor wording on my part. No social system remains dominant; generally those that cease to be become obsolete and are evolved out of.
Feudal Monarchy was dominant, now we have Capitalist Republicanism. Next - who knows? Certainly something new...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I don't see extremists there, but I think you're right with the corporate/government thing. Only problem: That's everywhere. Where money (or other "benefits") is, there is corrupution in the government. Same as in your country, just that it weren't monetary benefits.Indeed - but I have made my state weak enough for this corruption to be destroyed with great haste.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Interesting. Good you pointed that out.
So, I guess, the people I meet on the bus, fast foods and malls are the few exceptions?
I don't say you're wrong, they are (I hope) a minor part of those in wellfare. (not saying it's a very small part, I think it's a "major minor" part) But they are there, and, trust me, they don't care if society dislikes them or not, they dislike society as well. They would be the same in your country.I believe that this minority is grown to its scale by poverty. While it would always remain in a few, without the depressing mid-numbing depression of poverty, I believe this - often called "a culture of poverty" would not necessarily develop. Many of those you or I would, on sight, consider lazy are not so; they are weak. They would love to work, but it is too hard to get a job, to face derisive stares, to become educated, to... Pulling yourself up in society is hard.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Agreed wih the second. But it's a well-known secret, that in germany the SPD (social-democratic party of Germany) holds a big share of the newspapers.
"Deutsche Druck- und Verlagsgesellschaft mbH in Hamburg" belongs to the SPD.
To this holding belong 28 Media companies.Interesting. On the opposite, we have the Murdoch cartel's links with the Austrailian government, the coalescance of American media into two, relatively, right wing conglomerations.
It would appear that you are the exception, as far as I can ascertain.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And you want to tell me they're not biased in favour of the left?
Not far enough Left, to me ;) They're biased towards the centre left, most definately...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Exactly. Surprised?No, man's ability for hypocricy has long ceased to suprise me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Then it's not prove, sorry. For being prove, EVERYONE must be able to do so.
But maybe I didn't hear the sarcasm out...I'd say it's merely a misunderstanding here; I meant to say that in America and Australasia, the Left can prove our view of media bias, just like you can for the Right's view in Europe.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Well, if you're so "most certainly" not arrogant, how come you talk down to ICE and Chillman, and basically tell them their idiots without a clue? Care for an explanation?
Sure, you're "irritated", and I understand sometimes we leave the base of a good discussion, and enter the wide field of personal insults. But you obviously did the same to them, you insulted their/my/our (whatever fits) ideology the same.Indeed, I possibly did. I'm not perfect...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw What I tried to express was the following: Maybe you also need to look above your soupdish, and not act like your idea of socialism was the perfect solution to everything, and all else was useless. That you were the only one of us, who knew about marches, police and government violence and aggression, while we sit in our corners blindfolded, lied to yb the Media and not smart enough to detect it. Think about it for a moment.
Whoa, too true. The problem is that not one against me has recognised a flaw in our current system,which makes me assume [wrongly, perhaps] that you know little of these flaws...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw I'll just stick in here the other reply...
By the way, Anarkos, you claimed me for posting that, which is wrong.
(Originally posted by Dragonclaw) I guess you didn't update your copy-paste memory ;)
Indeed, apologies, my mistake.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Yes, but you happen to act that way too, methinks...NEVER! How dare you infer that I, I am imperfect???
Too true, really. We all think we're Saints, but not one of us is...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw As stated above, you're wrong sometimes. Maybe you hang around with too many left-wing anarcho-thingy-thingies? (whatever you or they want to call themselves)
Heh, my point was a bit sarcastic; he believed the Right's media view, but claimed to be a Leftist, so...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Centrist on the ten q one...
The other one, let's see... 0.75 and -2.62 So also pretty centric ;)
Damn moderates, you're as bad as reformists! :p
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Then some would start to work again, to give themselves some goods. Those goods are divided among the population. Therefor, many wouldn't work.
The working either live with this (unsocial, unfair), emigrate (Leaving the country in the same probs, just without people working, and this would eventually also lead to 3.), or a civil war would start. Doesn't sound social to me, actually.
I agree - if what we based this hypothesis on was true. In short, if your criticisms are true, it will fail. We've not yet established their truth, however.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Like today, with the democratic state?
Face it: when there's democracy in it's purest, it doesn't matter what kind of state or economy you got. If we had perfect democracy right now, with capitalism, people would solve their problems themselves. No need for socialism or getting rid of money.
To me, Socialism is needed to prevent Corporatism; it is a means to pure Democracy.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Really?
Would it not start everything over, people looking for pretty stones that they got, but others don't?
Excuse me?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw And where did you get that "human nature is malleable"-thing from? Got any evidence for that?
human nature can be suppressed, but not changed. (Else it wouldn't be nature, btw)
Let me restate: "Human nature" is malleable. By this, I mean that the things commonly put down to Human Nature are not in fact it; rather strategies to fulfil it. Human nature is to survive and reproduce, no more, and the rest are merely strategies for doing this...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Again, it may not sound nice, but: For a big part that's their own fault. You cannot expect a country to develop political and economical power, while there is war after war.
And the bad is not done by the first and second world countries alone, most is done by the dictatorship leaders of those countries.
What? Please, name a Dictatoral nation is the Sweatshop Band. In truth, while some nations are held back by war and government as you say, most are not.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Aren't they? You may not be happy, as you think we abuse them. They may think the same, but that can also for a big part be due to liking the victim role. Not to be rassistic, but look at blacks in the US. Many of them seem quite happy in their "the white man uses us, we have no chance to do anything"-role.
Have you heard of an EPZ?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw In 1984, the people are not exactly happy. 'And in Fahrenheit 451, the people are not exactly bad off. They're just dumb.
In 1984, they aren't happy, they're content. In both, apathy leads to dystopia.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw But have you read animal farm? The masses do a revolution, and live in a happy social structure. Shortly. Then the pigs take over, and in the name of animalism (~socialism) rule the farm with terror and brutality. This describes pretty good what I expect from a socialist state, short or long term.
The irony, of course, is that George Orwell was a Socialist, and fought in an Anarchist militia in Spain. Orwell is a man I greatly respect, and this metaphorical history of the USSR warned against Authoritarian Socialism. Tell me, why would Democratic Socialism lead to authoritarianism?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Hmm, right about the democratic rights. Unfortunately, as you wanted to point out earlier: The people don't always choose what is best for them.
But who's better?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw So, if I recall and sum up.
You basically say, you won't break the laws. But you will, if you think it's for a higher moral. But you won't break human right laws, which you haven't yet defined.
Only in defence of your human right laws.
I will never directly hurt another human; I draw a line between property and person. In defence of the Rights I, and you, believe humans should have, I will damage property.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Sounds a bit very squishy for me. Looks like the typical "I don't know yet, what I will have to justify later, so I'll keep them as general as possible"-set of rights.
Nope, that's just laziness and time constraints...this debate's already taking up too much time at its current depth...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Robin hood syndrome? Not everyone who owns something has achieved that immorally.
Of course, if you understand property as immoral, then yes. But then you cannot argument with that the way you try.
True; I'm well aware of that...ICEBreaker on 16/4/2002 at 08:30
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos I cannot, should not have acted as I did. I apologise once more for my rudeness. However, I persist in stating that generic abuse of any ideology or person is pointless and idiotic. We should not insult each other, but when we do, intentionally or not, we should apologise, in the spirit of friendly, polite and rational debate.So after all the stuff you said, you still have the gall to try and teach us the rules of forum etiquette. You got to be kidding me.
Dragonclaw on 16/4/2002 at 15:23
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Life - no man may place you in a situation whereby your death is likely.
Health - no man may injure you or deprive you of medicine or medical aid.
Free Speech - no man may silence you.
Free Assembly - no man may prevent peaceful public groupings upon public land.
Education - no man may deprive another of schooling.
I am astounded, however, to read through that document again, and to see how abused so many of those seem in our world today...
Sure, that's how the world is going, unfortunately...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
It can be. It can be the best of things, and it can be the worst of things...it is a risk. It something that the best and the worst of society believe. Naturally, I consider myself the former, as everyone does...
Just the important question is always: Is the result, which can maybe be achieved, worth the cost, which will likely happen? (In your case civil war, but I think I'll get to that later)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Apologies, poor wording on my part. No social system remains dominant; generally those that cease to be become obsolete and are evolved out of.
Feudal Monarchy was dominant, now we have Capitalist Republicanism. Next - who knows? Certainly something new...
Yes. But a part which is important: Those "revolutions" were never world-wide, usally limited to one country, or a small group of. But what you want/need, is a world-wide revolution, which makes it a bit harder...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Indeed - but I have made my state weak enough for this corruption to be destroyed with great haste.
I'm not sure of that. You can bribe people, not necessarily they have to be politicians. The policeman next door, the office worker around the corner, most of them can be bribed some way or another. Not to speak of the usual houseman/housewoman, they're usually bribed by everyone. And, as the people can be bribed, your whole state can be. If you bribe enough, and behave clever else, you can easily gain access to everything, power, or whatever you want. Maybe not really easy, but it's possible.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I believe that this minority is grown to its scale by poverty. While it would always remain in a few, without the depressing mid-numbing depression of poverty, I believe this - often called "a culture of poverty" would not necessarily develop. Many of those you or I would, on sight, consider lazy are not so; they are weak. They would love to work, but it is too hard to get a job, to face derisive stares, to become educated, to... Pulling yourself up in society is hard.
Well, first: They are not necessarily poor. I've seen and heard quite good examples the other way round.
And, second: I wouldn't state something like you described with "Ah, this state sucks!" "Yeah, but hey, they feed us, No need to work" "Yeah, only the stupid work"
No need to say they didn't look like the best example of friendly kids.
And this is actually not propaganda, but someting I heard with me own ears. Not all said it that clearly, but I think generally you can hear this attitude out.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Whoa, too true. The problem is that not one against me has recognised a flaw in our current system,which makes me assume [wrongly, perhaps] that you know little of these flaws...
Indeed, wrong assumed. I'm not happy with how the world is like today, either, and I'm aware of some flaws. The reason I maybe didn't put it this obvious here is just, that you see different causes and solutions for this than me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Damn moderates, you're as bad as reformists! :p
No, the bad thing is: There's usually no "center" for most people. Left will call me right (or, more usual, "Nazi"), right will call me left (Though that actually happens not that often).
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I agree - if what we based this hypothesis on was true. In short, if your criticisms are true, it will fail. We've not yet established their truth, however.
Right, that's the point about some not working.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
To me, Socialism is needed to prevent Corporatism; it is a means to pure Democracy.
For me, it's not, and it's not necessarily doing so, either.
I think you can control the corporations and such by the state, and by the people.
And, in Socialism, certain industries can gain power, as well. If the farmers burn their crop, the people will starve. Therefor they hold their share of power, more than for example programmers or teachers. So, if the agrar industry wants something to happen, they have a big argument on their side...
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos Excuse me?(About the stones)
Well, if you share all you have, you can have nothing than someone else has not. But as humans are, there's envy and jealousy. Soon someone will have something, that someone else has not. That's how money started in many places. So, the drive for cash will start again, sooner or later.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Let me restate: "Human nature" is malleable. By this, I mean that the things commonly put down to Human Nature are not in fact it; rather strategies to fulfil it. Human nature is to survive and reproduce, no more, and the rest are merely strategies for doing this...
Hm, disagree. I know how you emant it, and it makes more sense this way. But I'd call human nature more than surviving and reproducing, as I would also put some instincts and traits of humans in there, as well. (Envy, love, greed, and so on, and so on)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
What? Please, name a Dictatoral nation is the Sweatshop Band. In truth, while some nations are held back by war and government as you say, most are not.
For that, I'd need to know what you call the sweatshop-band.
And the "dictatorship" was not meat to be taken seriously, but usually it's the government creating poverty, either by wars, by not caring, or simply by corruption and the like. Companies may abuse, but without poverty, they couldn't.
If there's poverty, and sweatshops, people work there. If there are no companies, people steal, work in other illegal "organizations" (whether that be drugs, wars, or "just" standard exploiters), or they prostitute themselves.
I won't say sweatshops are not bad, or immoral, just that I don't see them as the reason for the poverty in those countries.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Have you heard of an EPZ?
Looked it up, and actually I don't like it too much...
But you know, those Zones are not forced by the companies, or by the US or Europe. They're established by the government of those states, and actually generate economic growth. Would you prefer it, if the companies wouldn't invest at all there?
And actually, I hope you don't want to deny the fact that this victim-attitude exists, and is a very comfortable excuse to live with.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
The irony, of course, is that George Orwell was a Socialist, and fought in an Anarchist militia in Spain. Orwell is a man I greatly respect, and this metaphorical history of the USSR warned against Authoritarian Socialism. Tell me, why would Democratic Socialism lead to authoritarianism?
At the beginning of Animal farm, you remember the rules Old Major gave them?
Were those not democratic rules? All animals are equal?
Still there developed an Authoritan System out of that. It IS possible.
To me, sooner or later someone will seize the power, this way or another. And socialism is easy to turn into a suppression system with the excuse of "serving the society", I think.
Tell me, how do you want to prevent this?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But who's better?
That's the question. It was just to demonstrate, that your state can be just as well turned into any other state.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I will never directly hurt another human; I draw a line between property and person. In defence of the Rights I, and you, believe humans should have, I will damage property.
Yes, but you will have to stand punishment for that, as those are not the rights that the majority accepts. And exactly that is what you want with "democratic rights", no?
Dragonclaw on 16/4/2002 at 15:26
Oh, and ICE: Comeon, don't be an ass.
I'm not asking you to fall down on your knees, but a little appreciation of his excuse seems fit.
Anarkos on 16/4/2002 at 20:40
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker So after all the stuff you said, you still have the gall to try and teach us the rules of forum etiquette. You got to be kidding me. ICE: I was wrong. I acted in a way I should not. For this discussion, and any future interactions between us, to be carried out in a polite and mature manner we need to both put it behind us.
I have apologised for my mistakes; now the ball is in your Court. It is hypocricy if you consider my actions, rightfully, unnacceptable, yet yours acceptable.
Anarkos on 16/4/2002 at 20:41
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Oh, and ICE: Comeon, don't be an ass.
I'm not asking you to fall down on your knees, but a little appreciation of his excuse seems fit. Cheers :)
Anarkos on 16/4/2002 at 21:20
ICE: I will reply to your points, despite the conclusion. If you don't wish to continue this, ignore the below and say you're out.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker That is hilarious. So I should adjust to your moods? When you feel irritated, you can go around swearing, and yet I have no right to respond? What you said to me was much worse. How arrogant of you to demand an apology from me!No comment; I've said my piece on this repeatedly. Your turn...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You can quote anyone you wish. However the fact you quote someone does not mean they support your cause.Nor have I said that they do; rather that they used methods similar, or even more extreme, that ours. They supported our actions, although not our cause.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker They were "slaves" of an unjust situation, and the majority thought so too, however they did not have the courage to stand up and make a difference.Some where not. Collins, de Valera, most certainly not. When the Anglo-Irish War began, the IRA was regarded as a group of thugs. Two years later, they were ridiculed for failing; they'd become popular while they fought their revolution, not before. De Valera also; in 1922 he walked out of the first legal Dail with the words "there are some rights a minority may uphold, even against a majority". Ireland was plunged into a civil war; the IRA split. Soon, Collins was dead. When Ireland was freed, fully, under the Statute of Westminster, Eamon de Valera was its first prime minister. Both Collins and he began fighting as a minority, and ended leading a majority.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The same cannot be said about your case. I recall our previous conversation on this point already. I want to get an important message through to you. In past revolutions, people were unhappy with the system, they were ready for a change and they only needed a leader to show them the way.Not in all cases, as I illustrated above.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker At the moment, people are happy. What you are doing is trying to do is to convert contented people and destabilise the system so that your political group can come to power. Do you see the difference here? So I hope in the future you won't go around quoting respected thinkers as if your cause is similar to theirs. I see the difference that you claim; but I believe it is false.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And it seems to me that the right thing to do is to vote for a left wing government and insist to your local government representative that more foreign aid is in order. If enough people wish this, the government will be pressured to act. This is democracy.It won't work. The theory Constitutional Republic is a wonderful one; the reality is not.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And even if the majority wanted to give more money to the poor and the 3rd world, but the government refuses, then they can donate to charities. The problem at the moment is not that the governments of western countries are indifferent, it is that society is indifferent! That's the root of the problem. So, so, I campaign to create the society's awareness. I'm not starting a revolt now, God forbid, it would be suicidal, for myself and the movement; our Easter wouldn't be as "successful" as that of 1916. No, we must gain our popularity through legal means when possible, and when they are denied to us, illegal means.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The reporter on TV is giving 1st hand information too. But of course according to you, it is all censored and doctored. Look, there is no point discussing riots. I have said it time and again that you won't be able to convince me. It is a matter of perspective.Nothing more to say, except this; I do not advocate aggression. I will not defend or march alongside an aggressor.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And I am talking about here and now. What you are doing is wrong! You have your own ambitions and set out to convert people, to gain a majority to support your thinking. This is not right. As an analogy, think of the Federation in Star Trek. They will not interfere with an alien race. However if they called for help, the Federation will assist them.Explain why the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, et cetera, can campaign towards a majority, but I cannot.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker In the same way, if humanity is discontent and needs a leader, then the courageous will stand up. At the moment, you are trying to manipulate people to your way of thinking, so that your ambitions and your system may be established. This is a vital point. You are doing what is right for the majority, by changing that majority. This is a bit like a captain saying that the ship is fine now, and they will not need to abandon ship unless the ship starts sinking. So you go and sabotage the ship. People are happy now; there is no need to change. You are the minority. So you try to rock the boat, destabilise the system, cause chaos, in the hope that one day you can persuade a majority to be discontent by various propaganda tactics.I'd prefer the analogy of a sinking ship, called
freedom. It has sprung a leak, but most people are yet to see it. So I run from person to person, telling them of the leak!
We are, in apathy, allowing the destruction of essential freedoms and rights. That cannot continue.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Besides you can talk about anything if you using your argument. How about something truly ridiculous. I propose that when we get to age 30, we must commit suicide in order to keep the population of the world low, and to stimulating people to achieve as much as possible within a short span of time. The reason why this will work is that if it is implemented, it means that a majority of people wanted it. And history will judge whether this action is right or not. That is basically your primary defence.I'm not trying to justify Socialism here; rather to justify my actions towards it. I shoundn't need to justify the rightness of my ideology to be allowed to peacefully propose it.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I don't think so. Communism believes in total equality and that the masses are the ruling class. Yet there are those in power who will not listen to the voice of the masses, NOT because it is corrupt, but because it believes it is doing the right thing in the interest of the people. If your political power ever gains the position of highest authority, it will try to never leave. You can put in as much checks and balances as you want, but systems will always protect itself. Even in the USA, political parties may come and go, but the Constitution and the US system of democracy is sustained. So while your system might be a form of democracy, and leaders can be toppled, but a system will be set up by those in power to ensure the basic principles of your system will be maintained. This is a trait of human behaviour, and even if you are genuine in your words at this moment, when and if the day ever comes, your fellow revolutionaries will not share your idealistic view of giving up power so easily.I would rather surrender now than allow this. Socialism is not the principle I fight for - freedom is. Understand me? If a system becomes locked in place against the people's will, I will oppose it. If my idea becomes perverted such, I'll take up arms against it.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The problems all around the world is not due to today's economic colonisation! It is due to nineteenth century European Imperialism (which worked) and the subsequent irrational remapping of the world after America decided to intervene last century. People are killing each other to get their pre World War territory back. This has nothing to do with present day US / Europe! If you want to blame someone, blame the global leaders of the 40s, not the people of today.Interesting. Basically, you're saying the problems are caused by the end of the Colonial Age; this is false, however. I'd say the problem was the start.
And, the problem that holds nations back now is debt, forced debt; and the only way out; "cash crops"; things the West want. People starve, with fertile fields of coffee for the international market. The nation needs these to sell to pay back the debt; the people starve. That's why the IMF/WTO has suffered such vocal opposition.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker China only fulfils half the definition of Fascism; the totalitarian side. To be a fascist country, there must be a great deal of nationalism and some racist policies. Communist China believes in the equality of all human regardless of race and gender. It is not a fascist country in that sense, and has never been considered one by others.It is, and was, highly national and neo-conservative. Racism is not part of all Fascism - Mussolini and Franco are both remembered as Fascist, yet niether of they were directly racist. Fascism is Conservative Capitalist Authoritarianism.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Perhaps you should clarify exactly what are the rewards of working hard in your society. Social recognition, respect and admiration.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker To bad I reply as I read which means I got to this right at the end. I won't argue with you then. I have no intention of changing your mind, as I know it is impossible.Good.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You have ever right to believe in what you want, and I would never dare insult you by going to your political forums and voicing my opposition. I wouldn't consider that an insult; I'd welcome you! If I could find an Anti-Capitalist meeting near you, I'd invite along on their behalf. I, we welcome others, with other ideas.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker The main problem I have with you (if you care to read our original statements) is that people in this forum respect the current government system and above all we respect the law. And the way you justify breaking the law because of your own person moral standards is offensive to me. You can believe what you want, but you don't have to stick it in our face here in the DX forum. It is not so much I am against your political system, it the way you do it. I did not come here to do so; I made a flippant post on piracy, and this developed. By the way, it irks me to have failed to make a convert; if we ever have the misfortune to meet face to face, just give me 2 hours, and I think that'll change.
Certainly, for example, my "insults", when spoken, would have taken on a different meaning entirely.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Subversive elements to a government which is supported by the majority is not acceptable. The fact that the majority is against your system of government proves that your system is self-serving. It's not subversion, any more so than the Democrats campaigning is...
Anarkos on 16/4/2002 at 21:49
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonclaw Sure, that's how the world is going, unfortunately...Afraid so...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Just the important question is always: Is the result, which can maybe be achieved, worth the cost, which will likely happen? (In your case civil war, but I think I'll get to that later)No, nothing worth wore; however, I believe that whatever I do, eventually, our polarizing society will tear itself apart. The more polarized it has become, the more bitter and violent this will be...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Yes. But a part which is important: Those "revolutions" were never world-wide, usally limited to one country, or a small group of. But what you want/need, is a world-wide revolution, which makes it a bit harder...I'd love a worldwide revolt. However, a national one would be acceptable; on the condition that we could be guaranteed freedom from outside intervention.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I'm not sure of that. You can bribe people, not necessarily they have to be politicians. The policeman next door, the office worker around the corner, most of them can be bribed some way or another. Not to speak of the usual houseman/housewoman, they're usually bribed by everyone. And, as the people can be bribed, your whole state can be. If you bribe enough, and behave clever else, you can easily gain access to everything, power, or whatever you want. Maybe not really easy, but it's possible.But the concept of "bribe" becomes harder; what to give? Likewise, these groups will be, generally, elected ones, which have an allowance for their constituents opposition; when someone's seen as corrupt, he'll walk...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Well, first: They are not necessarily poor. I've seen and heard quite good examples the other way round.
And, second: I wouldn't state something like you described with "Ah, this state sucks!" "Yeah, but hey, they feed us, No need to work" "Yeah, only the stupid work"
No need to say they didn't look like the best example of friendly kids.
And this is actually not propaganda, but someting I heard with me own ears. Not all said it that clearly, but I think generally you can hear this attitude out.God! Tell me, where and who have you heard saying such?
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Indeed, wrong assumed. I'm not happy with how the world is like today, either, and I'm aware of some flaws. The reason I maybe didn't put it this obvious here is just, that you see different causes and solutions for this than me.In that case, you have a measure of respect. I respect even the Conservative Libertarians; I respect anyone who stands outside apathy.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker No, the bad thing is: There's usually no "center" for most people. Left will call me right (or, more usual, "Nazi"), right will call me left (Though that actually happens not that often). I detest those who use such weak political insults. Worse, to me, is internal fighting. If I hear another person say "stupid Trotskyite", "reformist" or "bourgeois Communist" I will be violent I tell you...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Right, that's the point about some not working.It is...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker For me, it's not, and it's not necessarily doing so, either.
I think you can control the corporations and such by the state, and by the people.
And, in Socialism, certain industries can gain power, as well. If the farmers burn their crop, the people will starve. Therefor they hold their share of power, more than for example programmers or teachers. So, if the agrar industry wants something to happen, they have a big argument on their side...Interesting; that is correct. Of course, that occurs now; remember, I don't believe in utopia; my system has flaws, but I think it will be an improvement.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker (About the stones)
Well, if you share all you have, you can have nothing than someone else has not. But as humans are, there's envy and jealousy. Soon someone will have something, that someone else has not. That's how money started in many places. So, the drive for cash will start again, sooner or later.Ahh, perhaps. But, you recall, I don't view Human Nature that way.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Hm, disagree. I know how you emant it, and it makes more sense this way. But I'd call human nature more than surviving and reproducing, as I would also put some instincts and traits of humans in there, as well. (Envy, love, greed, and so on, and so on)I base my view on Socio-Biology; the theory that social acts are influenced primarily by biology. The one constant of that is the selfish gene theory - DNA wants to continue existing in as close to its current form as possible...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker For that, I'd need to know what you call the sweatshop-band.South East Asia, some Pacific Rim, certain African nations.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And the "dictatorship" was not meat to be taken seriously, but usually it's the government creating poverty, either by wars, by not caring, or simply by corruption and the like. Companies may abuse, but without poverty, they couldn't.Indeed; the problem is that they, with the IMF/WTO/G8 help, force the continuation of this poverty.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker If there's poverty, and sweatshops, people work there. If there are no companies, people steal, work in other illegal "organizations" (whether that be drugs, wars, or "just" standard exploiters), or they prostitute themselves.I am a firm Anti-Colonialist. I believe that if the First World pulls out of the Third, it will fix it's own problems eventually.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker I won't say sweatshops are not bad, or immoral, just that I don't see them as the reason for the poverty in those countries.A reason for continued poverty, combined with the rest of the Neo-Colonialist package.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Looked it up, and actually I don't like it too much...
But you know, those Zones are not forced by the companies, or by the US or Europe. They're established by the government of those states, and actually generate economic growth. Would you prefer it, if the companies wouldn't invest at all there?"Economic growth"; God I hate that. I hate Neo-Classical economics. Growth is always good, therefore growth will be good for an infinite amount of time, therefore growth will be infinately good. But we live in a finite system; continued growth in a finite system; infinite inside finite. Won't work...
The EPZ's gain international revenue, needed for trade, needed to pay back loans. If a state refuses them, they go somewhere else. The indebted nations fight over chances to make international revenue so they can pay their debts; they compete to make EPZ's "better".
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker And actually, I hope you don't want to deny the fact that this victim-attitude exists, and is a very comfortable excuse to live with.It exists; you recall I mentioned it's relation to poverty, on a more local scale, above.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker At the beginning of Animal farm, you remember the rules Old Major gave them?
Were those not democratic rules? All animals are equal?But, like in the USSR, the state it modelled, the pigs [Bolsheviks] had the power.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Still there developed an Authoritan System out of that. It IS possible.
To me, sooner or later someone will seize the power, this way or another. And socialism is easy to turn into a suppression system with the excuse of "serving the society", I think.
Tell me, how do you want to prevent this?Can we please not argue Animal Farm, but Soviet history? Certain parts of Orwell's work are biased, such as the saintly Trotsky, that is driven out, the ignored Mensheviks, the...
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker That's the question. It was just to demonstrate, that your state can be just as well turned into any other state.But, following its Constitution, if this happens, and the people dislike it, it falls.
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker Yes, but you will have to stand punishment for that, as those are not the rights that the majority accepts. And exactly that is what you want with "democratic rights", no? True; but I want the majority to freely and fairly determine them.
