That would never happen, but what should the rest of the world do if it happened?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?
Poll
If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?
| Yes, Invading the US and Hanging Bush | 28% | 28% - 20 | ||||
| Yes, Using Diplomacy and the UN | 12% | 12% - 9 | ||||
| No, it's America's Business | 30% | 30% - 22 | ||||
| Gtfo | 28% | 28% - 20 | ||||
| Total: 71 | ||||||
erm it would never happen mate.
no point even discussing
no point even discussing
If it did happen, I say we deserve it for being so god damned blind at whats been happening. Hell, now the 4th branch of gov't is now official in this administration.
The US government only has 3 branches.........golgoj4 wrote:
If it did happen, I say we deserve it for being so god damned blind at whats been happening. Hell, now the 4th branch of gov't is now official in this administration.
no, we have guns, we'd take care of it.
...and the executive branch is already one of them.blisteringsilence wrote:
The US government only has 3 branches.........golgoj4 wrote:
If it did happen, I say we deserve it for being so god damned blind at whats been happening. Hell, now the 4th branch of gov't is now official in this administration.
And yes, if that ever did come about, from anyone (like Hillary), that is what the Second Ammendment really is for.
Yes, that is the whole reason for the bill of rights, to protect against tyrrany. Besides, the rest of the world woud be too busy shitting themselves at the thought of a dictator with america's army at this command.imortal wrote:
...and the executive branch is already one of them.blisteringsilence wrote:
The US government only has 3 branches.........golgoj4 wrote:
If it did happen, I say we deserve it for being so god damned blind at whats been happening. Hell, now the 4th branch of gov't is now official in this administration.
And yes, if that ever did come about, from anyone (like Hillary), that is what the Second Ammendment really is for.
While the Bill of Rights are certainly important, what ultimately protects a populace from tyranny is the determination of the people to fight whatever aggressions their government implements against them.
Given the complicity of most of the public when reacting to the Patriot Act and even the violations of privacy done to us on a daily basis by the private sector, I'd say it wouldn't be as difficult to implement fascism here as people seem to think.
Whether or not it will actually happen is quite another story. I think our government prefers subtlety when it comes to oppression. If your populace still believes it is free, then there is little to no resistance, and you can still manage to get most of what you want from your people. Corporatist capitalism works beautifully in this sense.
Given the complicity of most of the public when reacting to the Patriot Act and even the violations of privacy done to us on a daily basis by the private sector, I'd say it wouldn't be as difficult to implement fascism here as people seem to think.
Whether or not it will actually happen is quite another story. I think our government prefers subtlety when it comes to oppression. If your populace still believes it is free, then there is little to no resistance, and you can still manage to get most of what you want from your people. Corporatist capitalism works beautifully in this sense.
This is one of the most intelligent posts ever.Turquoise wrote:
While the Bill of Rights are certainly important, what ultimately protects a populace from tyranny is the determination of the people to fight whatever aggressions their government implements against them.
Given the complicity of most of the public when reacting to the Patriot Act and even the violations of privacy done to us on a daily basis by the private sector, I'd say it wouldn't be as difficult to implement fascism here as people seem to think.
Whether or not it will actually happen is quite another story. I think our government prefers subtlety when it comes to oppression. If your populace still believes it is free, then there is little to no resistance, and you can still manage to get most of what you want from your people. Corporatist capitalism works beautifully in this sense.
The world help? How, by sending a really mean letter with lots of frownie faces ?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.sergeriver wrote:
This is one of the most intelligent posts ever.Turquoise wrote:
While the Bill of Rights are certainly important, what ultimately protects a populace from tyranny is the determination of the people to fight whatever aggressions their government implements against them.
Given the complicity of most of the public when reacting to the Patriot Act and even the violations of privacy done to us on a daily basis by the private sector, I'd say it wouldn't be as difficult to implement fascism here as people seem to think.
Whether or not it will actually happen is quite another story. I think our government prefers subtlety when it comes to oppression. If your populace still believes it is free, then there is little to no resistance, and you can still manage to get most of what you want from your people. Corporatist capitalism works beautifully in this sense.
***EDIT: The true test of freedom is being able to do those things that are bad for you, just because you want to. To act against your own self-intrest, in full knowledge of the concequences. I am not talking about harming anyone else, just yourself. If someone is passing laws that make it illegal to do that, your freedoms are dissapearing.
Last edited by imortal (2007-06-30 11:48:54)
Well, thanks serge... I think that's one of the nicest responses I've gotten here...
But hey, you bring up a lot of good points too. We definitely see eye to eye on the environment, the negative side of capitalism, and foreign policy. Some of your threads have made me think about angles to issues I hadn't considered before....
Still, I gotta say... Because of what I said above, I really doubt my government would blatantly try to oppress us. That's just way too obvious for a public as fractious as ours.
Discretion is the key.... lol
But hey, you bring up a lot of good points too. We definitely see eye to eye on the environment, the negative side of capitalism, and foreign policy. Some of your threads have made me think about angles to issues I hadn't considered before....
Still, I gotta say... Because of what I said above, I really doubt my government would blatantly try to oppress us. That's just way too obvious for a public as fractious as ours.
Discretion is the key.... lol
No, we'll come up with a really mean UN resolution with lots of frownie facesKmarion wrote:
The world help? How, by sending a really mean letter with lots of frownie faces ?
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.imortal wrote:
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.sergeriver wrote:
This is one of the most intelligent posts ever.Turquoise wrote:
While the Bill of Rights are certainly important, what ultimately protects a populace from tyranny is the determination of the people to fight whatever aggressions their government implements against them.
Given the complicity of most of the public when reacting to the Patriot Act and even the violations of privacy done to us on a daily basis by the private sector, I'd say it wouldn't be as difficult to implement fascism here as people seem to think.
Whether or not it will actually happen is quite another story. I think our government prefers subtlety when it comes to oppression. If your populace still believes it is free, then there is little to no resistance, and you can still manage to get most of what you want from your people. Corporatist capitalism works beautifully in this sense.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
Much obliged mate. Of course, this is something that could never happen in a blatant way as described in the OP, but what about a subtle way to do it, like you mentioned before.Turquoise wrote:
Well, thanks serge... I think that's one of the nicest responses I've gotten here...
But hey, you bring up a lot of good points too. We definitely see eye to eye on the environment, the negative side of capitalism, and foreign policy. Some of your threads have made me think about angles to issues I hadn't considered before....
Still, I gotta say... Because of what I said above, I really doubt my government would blatantly try to oppress us. That's just way too obvious for a public as fractious as ours.
Discretion is the key.... lol
Most people need to learn the idea that Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialism are both necessary in order for a country to work. When you are able to mix both concepts you are close to the ideal society.Turquoise wrote:
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.imortal wrote:
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.sergeriver wrote:
This is one of the most intelligent posts ever.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-06-30 11:58:28)
Well, I would agree that the War on Drugs is bullshit.imortal wrote:
***EDIT: The true test of freedom is being able to do those things that are bad for you, just because you want to. To act against your own self-intrest, in full knowledge of the concequences. I am not talking about harming anyone else, just yourself. If someone is passing laws that make it illegal to do that, your freedoms are dissapearing.
Given the privatized nature of our healthcare, I would also agree that things like smoking in public places should be left up to business owners.
Things get trickier when systems become socialized though.... In more socialized societies, the interests of society overall begin to take precedence over the interests of the individual. That seems to be what most people here refer to as encroachment against freedom.
The irony of our highly individualistic society, however, is that a small group of very rich people have risen to such a level of power that they are able to shape laws and regulations so that they benefit at the expense of the rest of us.
So, inevitably, whether you live in a Communism or a Capitalism, you will find yourself oppressed in one way or another. This is why, ultimately, people must maintain a distrustful view of government and of corporations. We must continue to pay attention to what these people try to get away with, and we must swiftly punish them for their transgressions.
The method by which they should be punished is ideally through elections, but it would appear that some negative forces in government are beyond reproach in terms of conventional means. If things get bad enough, a few well-placed bullets may have to be used.....
Good luck with that.Reciprocity wrote:
no, we have guns, we'd take care of it.
Watch me shoot this attack helicopter with my semi automatic rifle...
They'd have to pay the military a hell of a lot more to make them go along with this dictatorship.jord wrote:
Good luck with that.Reciprocity wrote:
no, we have guns, we'd take care of it.
Watch me shoot this attack helicopter with my semi automatic rifle...
im pretty sure that he's making a reference to Cheney and his ability to become his own branch...*check the news*blisteringsilence wrote:
The US government only has 3 branches.........golgoj4 wrote:
If it did happen, I say we deserve it for being so god damned blind at whats been happening. Hell, now the 4th branch of gov't is now official in this administration.
And what does this supposse to mean? Really.Kmarion wrote:
The world help? How, by sending a really mean letter with lots of frownie faces ?
Like Norway, for example.... Granted, there are other things at work here...sergeriver wrote:
Most people need to learn the idea that Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialism are both necessary in order for a country to work. When you are able to mix both concepts you are close to the ideal society.Turquoise wrote:
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.imortal wrote:
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
A truly ideal society is going to be small in population (10 million or less in most cases) and mostly homogeneous in culture (to prevent excessive conflict). Since Norway fits this description, they can live the way they do with great success.
Since America is so large, the rules change somewhat. A country with 300 million people can never hope to be as peaceful as Norway, but it can do several things to improve its situation.
The most important thing is to decentralize authority. Smaller governmental units represent people better than large ones. The interaction between Capitol Hill and K Street seems to demonstrate the core of our problems with the federal government quite well.
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.Turquoise wrote:
Like Norway, for example.... Granted, there are other things at work here...sergeriver wrote:
Most people need to learn the idea that Socialism and Capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism and Socialism are both necessary in order for a country to work. When you are able to mix both concepts you are close to the ideal society.Turquoise wrote:
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
A truly ideal society is going to be small in population (10 million or less in most cases) and mostly homogeneous in culture (to prevent excessive conflict). Since Norway fits this description, they can live the way they do with great success.
Since America is so large, the rules change somewhat. A country with 300 million people can never hope to be as peaceful as Norway, but it can do several things to improve its situation.
The most important thing is to decentralize authority. Smaller governmental units represent people better than large ones. The interaction between Capitol Hill and K Street seems to demonstrate the core of our problems with the federal government quite well.
There are severe problems with an extemist form of ANY type of goverment. I will grant you that unlimited capitalism would be bad, creating the comsuming masses and the few at the top who bounce among the companies.Turquoise wrote:
The only difference between Communism and Corporatism is that our system involves giving corporations control rather than the government.imortal wrote:
...right until the last sentence. And he was doing SO well up until then.sergeriver wrote:
This is one of the most intelligent posts ever.
Neither system truly benefits the individual.
However, there is also something to be said about supporting society's interests over the greed of individuals in power.
But extreme socialism is just as bad, subsuming any form of individuality for the good of the community as a whole, drawing your sense of self only as a part of the whole. I cannot see living to serve in a society like that.
Even an extreme freedom-based society would end up as anarchy without some form of controls.
And while I commend your belief in your cause, I do not think you have the proper grasp of communism in this sense, or you were grouping them together for shock effect and to draw a response based on that. Communism in practice had no person above another, and people were in the running of the goverment only because that was the position they were best at; not because of any desire for power. Communism as it stood in the USSR, or any other country for that matter, became something else altogether.
There cannot be an extreme form of any type of goverment. I think there is room for all our philosphies in a single goverment... in the correct mixture. Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty, as with most things in our age, is a matter of moderation, discipline, restraint, and balance.
Here's the problem. In a society as corporate as ours, there are many powerful groups that try to portray anything socialized as akin to Communism. This is likely a relic of the Cold War and the Red Scare, but it's also become a modern tradition for us since privatization benefits corporations far more than individuals in most cases.sergeriver wrote:
Of course, a country with 300M people isn't as easy to control as a 10M one. But, what I meant is many people need to understand that Socialism is not Communism and used in the right way, it can coexist with Capitalism. I make good money living in Capitalism, but I'd like my government to use MY TAXES to help the less fortunate that can't afford the basic standard of living. I'm not Communist for that, I think there's a social role in every government.
That's not to say that I want everything socialized though. I think we should socialize medicine here, but I think our socialized education system (pre-collegiate) has been a failure in many areas.
We should probably privatize education completely, but it will require a transition period of some sort. School vouchers seem like a decent idea.
It's basically a balance.... Socialized systems give more people access to a resource, but they encroach upon personal freedoms and can be inefficient. Privatized systems generally promote freedom of choice, but they also lead to wide disparities in access to a resource. This is why I can't really say that I want to socialize or privatize everything across the board. Different resources require different approaches.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- If Bush Removed Democracy from the US, Should the World Help?