Where do you rank your political beliefs?
- Thread starter vespers
- Start date
candle-wax
New member
I have heard it argued that the very principals of democracy are violence based, i.e 51% of the population should be able to beat the **** out of 49%
Bryan W Gaint
New member
Little man I very rarely respond to any of your nonsense but I have never seen anyone that put out so much bum scoop...........
You read what I wrote, right? The right I described (ethics, not morals) is the individual right to self-determination. Authoritarianism is the violation of the individual right to self-determination.
Is a Bill of Rights authoritarian? Is the concept of "majority rule limited by individual rights" authoritarian? I think not.
My idea is that people should be allowed to determine their own morals for themselves, but not force their morals upon others.
It sounRAB like you are a collectivist. Do you really want to live in a society where your life is the property of the collective, including some hicks in the hills who don't care about you?
Is a Bill of Rights authoritarian? Is the concept of "majority rule limited by individual rights" authoritarian? I think not.
My idea is that people should be allowed to determine their own morals for themselves, but not force their morals upon others.
It sounRAB like you are a collectivist. Do you really want to live in a society where your life is the property of the collective, including some hicks in the hills who don't care about you?
My ability of democratic self-determination is my ability to determine the laws of my country through the democratic process. When you take away that ability, I will have to abide to "your" morals/ethics of property ownership without having any way to influence my own situation.
Btw; what`the difference between ethics and morals?
Only if the people cannot change the individual rights through the democratic process. Something you seem to advocate.
Not really. You want to force your moral that killing is wrong on others. You want to force your moral that theft is wrong on others. You want to force your moral that "once someone creates something, they own it", on others. Etc, etc.
Yes, I would. Shared responsibility, shared ownership.
Btw; what`the difference between ethics and morals?
Only if the people cannot change the individual rights through the democratic process. Something you seem to advocate.
Not really. You want to force your moral that killing is wrong on others. You want to force your moral that theft is wrong on others. You want to force your moral that "once someone creates something, they own it", on others. Etc, etc.
Yes, I would. Shared responsibility, shared ownership.
threesevens
New member
Huh. Explain why you call people Bush haters and use personal attacks yourself when you're running out of ammo?
Oh yes, it's because you're a hypocrite.
I'm Voice of Treason, i can call people all the horrible names I want, but the minute they say ONE bad thing about me, I whine like a little girl about how it;'s so unfair and how they are meanies!
Oh yes, it's because you're a hypocrite.
I'm Voice of Treason, i can call people all the horrible names I want, but the minute they say ONE bad thing about me, I whine like a little girl about how it;'s so unfair and how they are meanies!
Staciebabyy
New member
You mean that as long as the democratic process protects your intereests/political ideology, it should be tolerated. But if your interests/ideology is threatened by democracy, it should be done away with?
Proportional representation carries effects that both strengthen and weakens the democratic process. Personally, I think it`s better. But I`m not so sure the US political system is suited for proportional representation.
Proportional representation carries effects that both strengthen and weakens the democratic process. Personally, I think it`s better. But I`m not so sure the US political system is suited for proportional representation.
Brett Andrews
New member
You very rarely respond to anything that proves you wrong.
In the other thread about Bush's foregin policy, you have cowardly ignored all of the posts that destroyed your factless claims.
In the other thread about Bush's foregin policy, you have cowardly ignored all of the posts that destroyed your factless claims.
manhattangurl10
New member
I could be wrong but I believe Libertarians are a party which has Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates in it............
Not my interests, my RIGHTS. As long as the government lets me and everyone else live freely, then I do not care how its leaders are chosen. If the leaders are powerless, then it matters not whether they are elected or not. Democracy is preferable, though, because the people are more likely to support liberty than unelected elites are. But democracy must be checked by minority rights as much as possible.
If the people elected Fascists (cough cough Bush cough cough,) would you let them destroy the Constitution?
The simple fact is that a totalitarian democracy cannot be a democracy for very long. When the government can exercise so much control over the voters, then democracy becomes meaningless. The party in power can brainwash the populace into voting for them, or threaten to levy higher taxes on supporters of opposing parties, and voila - populism collapses to fascism.
If the people elected Fascists (cough cough Bush cough cough,) would you let them destroy the Constitution?
The simple fact is that a totalitarian democracy cannot be a democracy for very long. When the government can exercise so much control over the voters, then democracy becomes meaningless. The party in power can brainwash the populace into voting for them, or threaten to levy higher taxes on supporters of opposing parties, and voila - populism collapses to fascism.
Doug Graves-Witherspoon
New member
I love you too little man........ 
FellingLonely
New member
Maybe none of the 20 consider themselves liberal or at least not as you would define it.
cutetrio2002
New member
Not in the conventional sense of those terms. Liberterianism is a different ideology, it is not a intermediate of liberalism or conservatism.
hearttech22
New member
Thanks, will do........
Olexa Torres
New member
Maybe we should secede from the Union and form our own country. We could call it The Confederate States Of America. Wait a minute..............didn't some patriots already try that? 
If you want to understand what people mean when they talk about "imposing morality", it's a distinction that neeRAB to be made.
Social relations are not hierachial, when two people meet and exchange gooRAB, worRAB, or hanRABhakes, nothing is "imposed" on anyone else. The rule of not murdering is an aspect of non-imposition, to call it imposed is like calling a bare foot a type of shoe, in this sense of the word. Obviously interpreted in the broad sense of the word, where any rule is seen as imposed, the entire concept becomes nonsensical.
In Hong Kong, a governor I believe appointed by the queen of England, and his administration, in the UAE a bunch of hereditary monarchs ruling their separate provinces, in Lichtenstein a hereditary monarchy also, though I believe there is some democratic input.
The constitution isn't a law so much as a meta-law. "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech" etc. So there's no law about speech allowed, whether by a minority, or a majority. So I suppose you could say the authors of the Constitution made the rules about what rules would be allowed and which wouldn't, and the rules which wouldn't, in theory at least, would not be decided by anyone at all.
After the short-lived French experiment with Democracy, Europe, and indeed, the Americans, were extremely skeptical about it. Tocqueville's main subject is this very matter, how democracies are unstable, and quickly tend towarRAB the establishment of a dictatorship (the people call for a strong leader). His other subject was how America had mechanisms to prevent the inherent instability and tendency of Democracy to collapse.
If you establish it again, it will happen again, it is democracy's nature. If perhaps less cruel than a dictator, it is more capricious, shifting one way and then the next, in line with shifting majorities.
I put to you that the reason for the success of our democracies and their longevity is primarily their anti-democratic features. All experiments where the reigns on democratic power were too loose quickly resulted in dictatorships, and it is unclear whether our present democracies will lead that way too, at least in form if not in name.
Social relations are not hierachial, when two people meet and exchange gooRAB, worRAB, or hanRABhakes, nothing is "imposed" on anyone else. The rule of not murdering is an aspect of non-imposition, to call it imposed is like calling a bare foot a type of shoe, in this sense of the word. Obviously interpreted in the broad sense of the word, where any rule is seen as imposed, the entire concept becomes nonsensical.
In Hong Kong, a governor I believe appointed by the queen of England, and his administration, in the UAE a bunch of hereditary monarchs ruling their separate provinces, in Lichtenstein a hereditary monarchy also, though I believe there is some democratic input.
The constitution isn't a law so much as a meta-law. "Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech" etc. So there's no law about speech allowed, whether by a minority, or a majority. So I suppose you could say the authors of the Constitution made the rules about what rules would be allowed and which wouldn't, and the rules which wouldn't, in theory at least, would not be decided by anyone at all.
After the short-lived French experiment with Democracy, Europe, and indeed, the Americans, were extremely skeptical about it. Tocqueville's main subject is this very matter, how democracies are unstable, and quickly tend towarRAB the establishment of a dictatorship (the people call for a strong leader). His other subject was how America had mechanisms to prevent the inherent instability and tendency of Democracy to collapse.
If you establish it again, it will happen again, it is democracy's nature. If perhaps less cruel than a dictator, it is more capricious, shifting one way and then the next, in line with shifting majorities.
I put to you that the reason for the success of our democracies and their longevity is primarily their anti-democratic features. All experiments where the reigns on democratic power were too loose quickly resulted in dictatorships, and it is unclear whether our present democracies will lead that way too, at least in form if not in name.
Camo13ammo
New member
A democratic process does not make a decision morally just. However, the lack thereoff makes a decsission morally unjust.
Nope. Because I would not agree to that decission. I find the decission imoral and unjust. Just like I would find the decission to not give water to a man dying of thirst as imoral and unjust. Or to not provide free education to children living in poverty, etc, etc.
Nope. Because I would not agree to that decission. I find the decission imoral and unjust. Just like I would find the decission to not give water to a man dying of thirst as imoral and unjust. Or to not provide free education to children living in poverty, etc, etc.