เกมส์_เกมยิงปลาใหม่_เว็บ บอล แจก โบนัส ฟรี

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]Every vote would be a complete success for the agenda of the deliberative council, starting with the vote that would create the death squads, who could then commence killing off those who voted against them. Haven't we seen this model before?[/b]

A state is first and foremost an army, so all elections are about a possible conscription. People who don't understand that elections are ultimately about life and death decisions are simply not evaluating their lives high enough.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Oooh, a "state is first and foremost and army". How Prussian. Let me know when you hit the late 19th century, yo.

quote:

Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

In a discussion forum, I cannot be in a position to use the inherent violence in the system to affect anything.[/b]


Of course. I am simply getting you to fully articulate your position, since you are much better at advocating for the imposition of the kind of totalitarian proccess you are outlining than I ever could be. I have not spent much time considering the possibility that killing people who don't vote might actually be considered a part of "constructive debate". In fact, come to think of it, this idea has never even crossed my mind.

Imagine, if you will, that Adolph Hitler is at a bar in 1922 chatting up his ideas about the Jewish conspiracy. After all a beer hall is a kind of "deliberative assembly", I am sure you will agree. Well, imagine that rather than everyone listening attentively and nodding their head in agreement, someone comess along and says something like: "Adolph is really having trouble mastering symbols", and started mocking him.

Well, in that case perhaps the Beer Hall Assembly might not have transformed its perfectly harmless, yet idiosyncratic, paranoid and fascist concept into a comprehensive policy of tyrrany followed by wanton mass extermination.

I would really like to be that guy in that Beer Hall. Perhaps I am being a little grandiose in my expectations of myself, but I'd like to think that is where I am coming from, in this case.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Slumberjack:
[b]Every vote would be a complete success for the agenda of the deliberative council, starting with the vote that would create the death squads, who could then commence killing off those who voted against them. Haven't we seen this model before?[/b]

Like I said several times before, after the last of the crude oil and gas are siphoned-off and piped south, I dont think bananas and coffee are gonna grow so well in this Puerto Rico du Nord. And our absentee corporate landlords won't be so generous about renting the commons to frozen hosers then.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I have not spent much time considering the possibility that killing people who don't vote might actually be considered a part of "constructive debate". In fact, come to think of it, this idea has never even crossed my mind.[/b]

Me too because threatening the lives of would-be non-voters is a fair but extreme way to make them appreciate their lives more carefully.

Will Hiscock

I think we do enough forcing people as is. Don't know and don't care? Don't vote. I think it is a fundamental right, and I can't imagine not voting. But I give a rat's ass, which many don't - fine. How about motivation not force.

Besides forcing people to vote does not make them informed and does not ensure they will be true citizens - which IS the goal.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Imagine, if you will, that Adolph Hitler is at a bar in 1922 chatting up his ideas about the Jewish conspiracy.[/b]

... an' where would Kirdorf, Krupp, Farben, Prescott, and Henry be sittin at this point? Ah? You see? It's not about compulsory fascism until the kingmakers and captains of industry conspire to buy an election for whatver reasons - ie. war of annihilation against commanism and aggression against the rebelution part deux)

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:

Me too because threatening the lives of would-be non-voters is a [b]fair[/b] but extreme way to make them appreciate their lives more carefully.


[img]http://theunexplainedmysteries.com/images/pol-pot1.jpg[/img]
Appreciating life to the fullest in Cambodia.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Will Hiscock:
[b]I think we do enough forcing people as is. Don't know and don't care? Don't vote. I think it is a fundamental right, and I can't imagine not voting. But I give a rat's ass, which many don't - fine. How about motivation not force.

Besides forcing people to vote does not make them informed and does not ensure they will be true citizens - which IS the goal.[/b]


Because it is so easy to go to the poll, you have to have a good reason not to go. To me, rationality and justice begin right at this sentence.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Forced voting would be a very good reason not to go to the poll.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]
Appreciating life to the fullest in Cambodia.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Yes-yes, the UN/US-backed khmer rougers were even more brutal than Hun Sen's people, and so it was decided that Pol Potty's bunch should have a quarter of Cambodia all to themselves.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Forced voting would be a very good reason not to go to the poll.[/b]

No it would not be a good reason if one is allowed to secretly spoil his ballot.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Benoit

error

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Fidel

It's settled then. And I might add that our stooges in power are regressing when they accept large dollar donations and gifts under the table from corporations and rich people. And in the same vein, our elected officials shouldnt be forcing corporate welfare handouts on profitable energy companies and banks. It's absolutely repressive. I can only imagine what would happen if they refused to accept billion dollar taxpayer handouts from the peons.

genstrike

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Me too because threatening the lives of would-be non-voters is a fair but extreme way to make them appreciate their lives more carefully.[/b]


So, you think killing people for not participating in a sham democracy is fair?

And you think the state threatening to kill someone will make them appreciate their lives more? I suppose all those Jews in Germany really appreciated their lives.

And if I still refuse to participate in this oppressive and violent system, you think killing me is fair?

Really?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]error
[/b]

Correct.

Fidel

oh my GOD! They're killing people again for voting? Where? Someone should put a stop to it immediately!! They've got no morals and no skool principals i dare say

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]It's settled then. And I might add that our stooges in power are regressing when they accept large dollar donations and gifts under the table from corporations and rich people. And in the same vein, our elected officials shouldnt be forcing corporate welfare handouts on profitable energy companies and banks. It's absolutely repressive. I can only imagine what would happen if they refused to accept billion dollar taxpayer handouts from the peons.[/b]

Basically people don't vote because they are too busy working. But when people don't vote, we see now what is happening to them: they end up working for nothing: the politicians are only bailing out corporate executives while the people are losing their houses and pensions.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Come now. You have already exposed yourself for what you are there is no reason to try and make some kind of populist appeal to the anti-corporate sentiments of the board to try and get sympathy for your fascist ideas. That is par for the course.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by genstrike:
[b]

So, you think killing people for not participating in a sham democracy is fair?

And you think the state threatening to kill someone will make them appreciate their lives more? I suppose all those Jews in Germany really appreciated their lives.

And if I still refuse to participate in this oppressive and violent system, you think killing me is fair?

Really?[/b]


Learn something about fascism. Fascism is about personally cult. It is about totally identifying yourself with the leader. For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Basically people don't vote because they are too busy working. But when people don't vote, we see now what is happening to them: they end up working for nothing: the politicians are only bailing out corporate executives while the people are losing their houses and pensions.[/b]


Those are salient points you've made. And I must repeat something I did read about better participation rates in Nordic and Scandinavian countries. They tend to have higher participation rates because Swedes and Danes have something worth protecting from right wing political agendas, namely their well-funded social welfare states. They turn out in droves on the one day that counts every four years or so.

Here our politicians have gradually whittled away at our social gains beginning in the 1980's by way of stealthy neoliberal policies, FTA-NAFTA flip-flops and other betrayals ongoing behind closed doors with Canadians never fully realizing what they've been up to.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

Learn something about fascism. Fascism is about personally cult. It is about totally identifying yourself with the leader. For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for.[/b]


Hardly. Fascism is primarily the idolatry of the state as the embodiement of "nation".

The state in it National Socialist form is founded on the idea that Furher (the leader) is the emodiement of the Reich (the state) and therefore it's people. That's Hitler, not Musolini.

Musolini is the founder of the Fascist movement, and it primary ideologue. The leader is not primary in his concept and the state is absolut. Italian fascism is closely linked to "corporatism", In Italian, traditionally, a "corporation" would be one of a number of "civic assemblies". How closely does that track your notions of "deliberative assembly?" In fact Italian fascist corporatism claimed to be a direct heir of anarcho-syndicalism. This fact also tracks your ideas as well.

quote:

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".


Benito Mussolini from[url=http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm]THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

[/url]

Where do you think you are? A second year German philosphy class? Its fine to promote your fascist ideas here, but please don't promote falsehoods.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b] For a fascist there cannot be more than one candidate to vote for.[/b]

But what if Canadians only ever had the real choice of choosing between two political parties delivering very similar corporatist and banking agendas for the last 140 years in a row - or roughly twice as long as Soviets ruled the USSR?

I think our autocrats perhaps [i]should[/i] begin anew by threatening small fines for not voting just to arouse a few hypnogogic non-voters(41% of eligible voters apparently) to the general idea of democracy before restarting the federal study on electoral reform.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Benoit

Not voting is free riding: non-voters want the protection of a state for free.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

เกมส์ยิงปลาW88
Benoit

error

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]error
[/b]

quote:

The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State. Instead of directing the game and guiding the material and moral progress of the community, the liberal State restricts its activities to recording results. The Fascist State is wide awake and has a will of its own. For this reason it can be described as " ethical ".


Benito Mussolini from[url=http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm]THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

[/url]

Wedding a person to the state through compulsory patricipation in the selection of leadership is a fascist concept where the "State is absolute, individuals and groups relative." It is the embodiement of totalitarianism.

Brian White

Which party would benefit the most if voting was compulsory? Not the cons, they all vote already.
And the greens vote automatically regardless of their chance of winning.
So I guess the ndp and the federal liberals.
So the left would gain.
Penaltys for non voting? How about loss of citizenship, withdrawal of passports, or conscription? Perhaps voting record could be linked to the old age pension?
As far as I am concerned the left leaning non voters have let my side down.
Why should we cut slack to deserters?
The non voter as a traitor? How should we see them?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]Not voting is free riding: non-voters want the protection of a state for free.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]


"Individuals and groups are admissible in so far as they come within the State."

Benito Mussolini.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

The liberal State restricts its activities to recording results.

Benito Mussolini
[/b]


Deliberative democracy is much more than aggregative democracy.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Which party would benefit the most if voting was compulsory? Not the cons, they all vote already.[/b]

The Fascist Party, regardless of what colour of lawn sign they stick in their yard.

The arguement for principled non-voting becomes clearer the more we can see that Fascist ideologies are embedded deeply in the thinking of party activists, from any of the "official parties", that receive regular payments from the state for each vote they get authorizing the state.

What do the "official" parties get now? $1.85 per vote that they secure? or something like that?

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Jacob Two-Two

I think where you're going horribly, horribly wrong is this notion of voting as a responsibility. While it is a responsible thing to do, one might say, it cannot be a responsibility in the stricter sense of the word, because by design it is the very reform that legitimised the notion of responsibility to the state.

The advocates of democracy said, we will accept the authority of the state again if you give us the right to choose our leaders. That was the compromise that held the social order together and is still doing so today. It is not something you owe to the state, it is something the state owes to you, your authority that recompenses you for the authority you give up to the state.

As such, it is foolish to squander it, but it is also fully your right to do so. If you put parameters on voting, even in the case of wasting your vote, you remove the authority the vote was meant to provide. You betray the compromise, and enslave people all over again. My vote is my own. I don't owe it to anyone. I can do what I like with it. If you want to enforce restrictions on my democratic franchise, then I consider you an enemy of democracy. I don't see how it can be otherwise.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Which party would benefit the most if voting was compulsory?[/b]

It would possibly be a brand new party dedicated to getting rid of this legislation. Anyway, this is the way things are done in a non-fascist society.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]The state in it National Socialist form is founded on the idea that Furher (the leader) is the emodiement of the Reich (the state) and therefore it's people. That's Hitler, not Musolini.[/b]

It is possible that German fascism included the idea of ein volk ein reich ein fuhrer, and whose "nation state's needs" were to project power across international borders for the purpose of corporatist needs and not so much out of ordinary folk's needs. Emil Kirdorf and der future fuhrer decided they needed financial backing if SDAP were going to overcome terrific odds against them with half a dozen socialist and communist parties poised for election.

Ernst Rohm believed that a second workers uprising to takeover the factories was the next logical step for national socialism. The very idea frightened Germany's industrial and banking elite, and so the socialist wing of the party were murdered in the middle of the night. Exnay on the ocialism say. Corporationists stood idly by and counting the weeks to zero labour costs in the new lebensraum to satiate corporate appetites for money and power, and a new lust for world domination from Berlin to New Jersey.

So, considering that the NDP has described a general lack of transparency and accountability in N. America where phony majorities, and now coalition rule with exaggerated minorities, and backroom deals are the way, which region of the world would be most susceptible to fascist rule today?

Cueball Cueball's picture

No one questions the fact that all the main parties in Canada simply function as extensions of the state in Canada because they are paid to promote the process upon which it legitimizes its existance: democracy.

Noticably, other parties, and persons who are not part of the official party structure are punished by the state for participating as candidates, because they get no money returned if the do not collect enough votes.

Compulsory voting does the same thing, but demands that all persons legitimize the state by using a totalitarian instrument to totalize the ideology of democracy society wide.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]No one questions the fact that all the main parties in Canada simply function as extensions of the state in Canada because they are paid to promote the process upon which it legitimizes its existance: democracy.

Noticably, other parties, and persons who are not part of the official party structure are punished by the state for participating as candidates, because they get no money returned if the do not collect enough votes.

Compulsory voting does the same thing, but demands that all persons legitimize the state by using a totalitarian instrument to totalize the ideology of democracy society wide.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


A state is relative to all other states. If you weaken your own state, you will be captured by another one.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Fidel

We don't have compulsory voting, but we do have 22 percenters Ottawa and Toronto. McGuinty's 22 percent of registered voter support translates to 100 percent of power, while the Harpers were able to count on the other wing of the business party to push the corporatist agenda through.

I think that it in this case, our autocratic old line parties actually prefer low voter turnouts and not to arouse sleeping interests for electoral reform. Same goes for the Liberals who would prefer riding shotgun for the Harpers to disabusing Canadians of the undemocratic practice of strategic voting.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

A state is relative to all other states. If you weaken your own state, you will be captured by another one.
[/b]


Yes, yes Luddendorf, and all that rot about "Der totale Krieg." Nothing un-fascist about social darwinism. Quite the opposite. Again par for the course. I bet you even think you understand Clauzewitz.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Yes, yes Luddendorf, and all that rot about "Der totale Krieg." Nothing un-fascist about social darwinism. Quite the opposite. Again par for the course. I bet you even think you understand Clauzewitz.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


Social darwinism has a problem explaining the fact of widespread cooperation.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Forcing people to vote is not about "co-operation".

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Forcing people to vote is not about "co-operation".[/b]

Forcing people to vote is forcing people to reciprocate. Reciprocity is the fundamental element in any cooperative venture.

Cueball Cueball's picture

I

don't

want

your

generosity.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]I

don't

want

your

generosity.[/b]


To be left alone, inside a society, you have to do something.

Fidel

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Forcing people to vote is not about "co-operation".[/b]

What if it was done for one election only and for the sake of whipping up national interest in a referendum on electoral reform? We just can't go on with this Liberal-Tory Excalibur and lady of the lake selection thing. I mean, what will our international neighbors think? - that we prefer tin pot rule to one person equalling one vote?

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

To be left alone, inside a society, you have to do something.[/b]


Just because the social is fundamental does not mean that all things need be absolutely wedded to the social, using a totalitarian device backed up by violence. There is the issue of degree. Your conception is "absolute" like Musollini's, it it totalitarian in concept, fascist in effect.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

brookmere

quote:


Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]
I think that it in this case, our autocratic old line parties actually prefer low voter turnouts and not to arouse sleeping interests for electoral reform.[/b]

Do you have any empirical evidence that there is any correlation between low voter turnout and electoral success for the Liberals and Conservatives versus the NDP or PQ/BQ, either at the federal or provincial level?

Did not the recent federal election with its historically low turnout produce one of the largest percentages of non-old-line MP's (NDP and Bloc) in the Commons ever? And the lowest % of popular vote for the Liberals and Conservatives combined ever?

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: brookmere ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

Everyone is all excited by the idea of voter supression, so now they think if everyone would vote they would vote NDP.

Benoit

quote:


Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]

Just because the social is fundamental does not mean that all things need be absolutely wedded to the social, using a totalitarian device backed up by violence. There is the issue of degree. Your conception is "absolute" like Musollini's, it it totalitarian in concept, fascist in effect.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ][/b]


It is a question of degree since going to the poll is a very easy action relative to the power it guarantees to you.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ]

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

To be left alone, inside a society, you have to do something.[/b]


quote:

In our state the individual is not deprived of freedom. In fact, he has greater liberty than an isolated man, because the state protects him and he is part of the State. Isolated man is without defence.

Benito Mussolini.


[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Benoit

The idea of making voting compulsory is independent of the punishment one is proposing for non-voters (death, jail, what have you).

Cueball Cueball's picture

Hardly, since it is impossible to make it compulsory without a proposed manner of enforcement.

Cueball Cueball's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Benoit:
[b]

A state is relative to all other states. If you weaken your own state, you will be captured by another one.

[ 06 November 2008: Message edited by: Benoit ][/b]


quote:

The right to national independence does not arise from any merely literary and idealistic form of self-consciousness; still less from a more or less passive and unconscious de facto situation, but from an active, self-conscious, political will expressing itself in action and ready to prove its rights. It arises, in short, from the existence, at least in fieri, of a State. Indeed, it is the State which, as the expression of a universal ethical will, creates the right to national independence

Benito Mussolini


Pages

Topic locked