Do you agree with Democracy?

[Distruzio]

Ridiculous. Doing that necessitates a "lowering the bar" approach to education to cater to the lowest common denominator thus the population does not, necessarily, become better educated but, rather, more indoctrinated.

Here, in America, we have an incredibly high rate of education but an equally high rate of functional illiteracy. Sure, folks graduate from coercive education but they're, generally speaking, morons. That isn't a politically intelligent population. That's a fucking stupid population. Really, any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be. That's all due to public education within our culture.

Those countries have public education as well, the idea of public education is not at fault.

They suffer the same inevitable tendency of public education.

[Geilinor]

Those countries have public education as well, the idea of public education is not at fault.

They suffer the same inevitable tendency of public education.

But you said, "any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be".

[Distruzio]

They suffer the same inevitable tendency of public education.

But you said, "any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be".

Indeed. Which suggests what Geil?

[Eleanor Ritas]

But you said, "any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be".

Indeed. Which suggests what Geil?

Why would they seem ass backward if they suffer the same "inevitable tendency".

You've completely contracted yourself.

[Geilinor]

But you said, "any person from a nation in Europe is aware of just how back asswards Americans seem to be".

Indeed. Which suggests what Geil?

It suggests that Europe seems less ass backwards despite having public education.

[Untaroicht]

I find it interesting that in most online political discussions (especially NSG and reddit), the objectivist libertarian will receive more ridicule and arguments presented towards them then the die-hard italian fascist

[Arztoztka]

I simply don't believe extensively on it because people can't make up their mind of what to choose, or they can be easily misguided and choose something that is of no good to them, or bribed into voting for something that only benefits few.

I do accept it as long either:

-There is only one party or 3 or something, limiting the options in my opinion is better. Now, of course there are single-party states that whose don't benefit at all from this (Venezuela, Laos, Eritrea), mostly due this government is wicked and corrupted, but if you could put the proper party on the power then there should be no problem at all, citizens can vote only on representatives that either keep running the show as always or go a little left (not totally left, I despite that) or right. But of course, there are ones that go well (Vietnam).

-Political education is compulsory, as it, every citizen must participate in a Model United Nations thing, and get learned in politics. This could be an effective method to ensure that at least the great majority of citizens know what to do and also point out any flaws presented on a party/system.

But unfortunately, neither of these two can be effectively applied at masses, or at least in several countries we know (or the big one, USA), and well, pretty much.

This is just my opinion of how things should be done, opinion that may be right or wrong, it's up to you.

[Shaggai]

One of the main benefits of democracy, one which most people are ignoring, is the succession wars. For example, the whole Bush/Gore thing, where Gore declared the election results illegitimate, then raised an army and forcibly deposed Bush.

(hint: that didn't happen.)

[Dalcaria]

My goodness, you are comparing Nazi Germany to modern America! How can you not see how ridiculous you are!

You've obviously never heard of Tuskegee then.

The discrimination, is no where near the same, and while it exists, one cn succeed despite.

Let me ask you something, do you know who one of the first users of Zyklon B gas was? Take a wild guess. Not Germany, not Italy, not Spain, Russia, or some other tyrannical country. It was America. And guess who got inspired by this? Germany. During the 20's the KKK numbered almost 12 million + members, it was MASSIVE! Discrimination in the US had been, at BEST, as bad or slightly less bad than what occurred in Nazi Germany, and even then you have to question how many people in Germany actually supported the ill treatment of Jews. It's taken the crimes of Nazi Germany, the civil rights movement and almost 50 years of time to actually bring discrimination down to as low as it is now, and it still hasn't gone away.

It is against the law, you can sue people because of it, and is not institutionalized. You are justifying genocide in the name of a good economy.

Yeah, and it took WW2 and the Civil Rights movement for the US to get to that point! And I'm justifying genocide? Now you're willfully ignoring where I said that I supported Fascism because of how it affected the economy, I never said I supported genocide, nor did I say I felt it justified it. I would have liked to see Nazi Germany NOT commit genocide and become a strong economic power, but that didn't happen and I'm disappointed. I hate racism more than most other things in this world, so don't try and paint me as a racist.

You've been doing nothing but justifying European colonialism the whole time.

Strawman. I've been attacking Democracy because you think it's above that. It's not. If I've "defended" anything, it's the UK, and even still I fully recognize it has committed crimes, but I'm not going to let you paint whatever picture you like of it.

They weren't given representation, and weren't considered citizens. I've told you time and time again democracies do not make you better internationally, they make you better domestically, to your own citizens.

Hence why black people were so horridly abused, because they weren't considered people, and therefore they weren't considered citizens. Also, the UK didn't go on genocidal campaigns against the Natives and almost wipe them out completely, and they weren't given representation, and in many cases weren't considered citizens of the British Empire. How does that make America any more justified?

You keep pulling this up, and saying how awful the US was, and then go on pretending how a monarchy will do better.

Pretending? I KNOW monarchy could do better (at least non-sovereign monarchy) if there was a decent monarch in charge, and attack it as a "one in a million" chance all you like, because democracy isn't any different, you've still got the 1 in a million chance of getting a decent leader.

Where have those succeeded, long term?

If Norway is one, then Norway. Obviously it didn't succeed in Nazi Germany because they ended the policy after the war ended. How are you supposed to consider it a success or a failure if it was ended? That doesn't even make any sense!

Refuting any opinion you might have about German authoritarianism.

Why, because I said the committed a genocide in Africa?

Irnoic that he was the one who started the democratization process.

I take it as a sign that he was a better leader than nearly every politician Democracy has spawned. He had power to do with as he pleased and he used it responsibly, not something I can say for most leaders. I don't approve of Democracy, but I do approve of Tito.

Simple regulations /=/ planned economics. For God's sake, Hitler's economy was built solely for war. It could only be sustained with more war. If Nazi Germany had stopped needing to produce military equipment, it's economy would have collapsed. It was conquered before this had a chance to happen.

So you're saying that Nazi Germany could not have adopted a non-war based economy? Really? Hitler pushed Germany into a war economy because he was planning on a WAR! I don't know what better word I can use to describe this than DUH! And once the war finished, do you think he was just going to keep building tanks? Really? He wouldn't switch to supporting consumer products or something? And furthermore, he could have adopted something closer to the Social Credit system (which I support) which is NOT reliant on war. Basically your whole argument here is based on the idea that he would have held the course, no matter what, which frankly has no basis in history itself so you have no logical idea of what would have happened.

He was the only one who really built a planned economy that stood the test of time.

If I remember correctly, it pretty much fell apart while he was still alive. Nikita helped get the Soviet Union more industrialized and more into trade with Soviet nations, if I remember correctly. But if it really was a planned economy the whole time, then I question what it was that killed them in the end, the planned economy, or the liberalization of it.

Which you can do without planning the entire economy.

Which puts people like me in the same place; poor, unable to find a real job, and unable to get financial assistance when we need it. Truly, the wonders of an uncontrolled economy are swirling around me!

It needs more regulation, but it is not anywhere close lassiez-faire.

You minimum wage is below what is required to meet the minimum standard of living income. It may not be lassiez-faire, but it's the next worst thing.

Those deaths probably could have been avoided if the revolutionaries had had level headed leaders to remind them that not every person who was an aristocrat was guilty of tyranny.

Those people were killed by the aristocrats.

And Robespierre.

The nobles were calling international favors and fleeing the country. Royalist revolts were breaking out across the country. The nobles were bribing their way out of prison. Every day they weren't tried was a day they risked fleeing. The nobles dug their own grave with how violently they repressed the peasants.

Well, if that's the case, then would you feel it just if the people revolted against the democratic system? If they took politicians and corporate leaders and had them executed because they were a flight risk? I only ask because if you view an act of violence by some justifies an act of violence upon all, then would you also accept the same fate for essentially the same thing today? Me, I hate the democratic system, but at MOST I would nationalize companies and throw corrupt persons in prison. Death is reserved for those who have caused death, and if need be, I would consider holding trials for people like that, but they would be real trials, not lynch mobs.

Napoleon, despite being a monarch, liberalized the social structure and instituted a meritocracy. So did the other popular monarch(who had to win an election first).

Not sure about the election bit for the second, but I'm not against either. However, I thought the purpose behind the revolution was to make all men "free", and isn't monarchy, by some interpretation of the philosophy behind it, the opposite of that? I'm not saying that's true, rather I'm saying it's silly to call monarchy in all it's forms "oppressive" when you seem to have demonstrated the opposite here.

[Arztoztka]

or go a little left (not totally left, I despite that)

...if you go and check my country and find out that I've strong anti-business policy, that was an accident. Whilst I was making my country and I came across the question ''Is Capitalism on the way out?'' I checked if the question was pro-capitalist, and one result said yes (since the others were basically ''I don't know'') and I bought it.

Although it may appear that my English is superb(I am the best at speaking English of my class, of course, out of those whose mother language is Spanish, we have an American), it is not even my mother language (that one being Spanish).

So, yea, I didn't comprehend the question well and fucked up on a personal level...which is why I try to check everyday for issues, to cross my fingers and to see if there is one that can change that...

[Distruzio]

Indeed. Which suggests what Geil?

Why would they seem ass backward if they suffer the same "inevitable tendency".

You've completely contracted yourself.

I did no such thing. What I suggested is that not all public education systems are the same. The Europeans would seem less ass backwards than the Americans because they don't have the exact same structure to public education. The European educational systems, by and large, allow for more localized vibrancy in the educational system. I described a general tendency of a particular institution. I did not point at, say, the Canadian educational system and suggest that it, specifically, was a downward tending institution with no redeeming qualities. That'd be a no true scotsman. I made a general observation about educational systems without making any specific commentary about any specific institution.

Thus I did not contradict myself.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Why would they seem ass backward if they suffer the same "inevitable tendency".

You've completely contracted yourself.

I did no such thing. What I suggested is that not all public education systems are the same. The Europeans would seem less ass backwards than the Americans because they don't have the exact same structure to public education. The European educational systems, by and large, allow for more localized vibrancy in the educational system. I described a general tendency of a particular institution. I did not point at, say, the Canadian educational system and suggest that it, specifically, was a downward tending institution with no redeeming qualities. That'd be a no true scotsman. I made a general observation about educational systems without making any specific commentary about any specific institution.

Thus I did not contradict myself.

So you're just not going to admit it. Okay.

[Distruzio]

I did no such thing. What I suggested is that not all public education systems are the same. The Europeans would seem less ass backwards than the Americans because they don't have the exact same structure to public education. The European educational systems, by and large, allow for more localized vibrancy in the educational system. I described a general tendency of a particular institution. I did not point at, say, the Canadian educational system and suggest that it, specifically, was a downward tending institution with no redeeming qualities. That'd be a no true scotsman. I made a general observation about educational systems without making any specific commentary about any specific institution.

Thus I did not contradict myself.

So you're just not going to admit it. Okay.

You can ask anyone with whom I've debated in previous conversations. I'm not known for ignoring or otherwise turning a blind eye when I'm corrected. The fact is that I did not contradict myself. You may still disagree with me, but your response was that I contradicted myself. I did not. I phrased my commentary in a way that avoided that.

[Conscentia]

So you're just not going to admit it. Okay.

You can ask anyone with whom I've debated in previous conversations. I'm not known for ignoring or otherwise turning a blind eye when I'm corrected. The fact is that I did not contradict myself. You may still disagree with me, but your response was that I contradicted myself. I did not. I phrased my commentary in a way that avoided that.

Evidently that's not true, as multiple people have interpreted it otherwise.

[True American States]

I think Churchill said that while democracy is not perfect its the best we got, so I'm incline to agree.

[Sun Wukong]

I think Churchill said that while democracy is not perfect its the best we got, so I'm incline to agree.

"Because Churchill said so" is a pretty lousy reason to do anything.

[Scomagia]

I think Churchill said that while democracy is not perfect its the best we got, so I'm incline to agree.

"Because Churchill said so" is a pretty lousy reason to do anything.

Really, "because X said so" is a pretty lousy reason to do anything.

[The Flood]

The correct question is: does democracy agree with me?

Dang, that's a better way of wording what I said :/

[Immoren]

Force mandatory nine year comprehensive education starting when they are 7+/-1years old. *nods*

7 seems very late, and 9 years seems very short.

In Finland mandatory education on average starts when child's 7.
And lasts either till curriculum is completed or 10 years has passed, whichever comes first.
Anything before or afters optional.

[The Flood]

One of the main benefits of democracy, one which most people are ignoring, is the succession wars. For example, the whole Bush/Gore thing, where Gore declared the election results illegitimate, then raised an army and forcibly deposed Bush.
(hint: that didn't happen.)

You're implying that shouldn't have happened

[Immoren]

One of the main benefits of democracy, one which most people are ignoring, is the succession wars. For example, the whole Bush/Gore thing, where Gore declared the election results illegitimate, then raised an army and forcibly deposed Bush.

(hint: that didn't happen.)

Obviously Church of Baptists of ‘Merica wouldve prevented it by acting as impartial referee.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

All that matters to me is the efficiency of the state apparatus and the general well-being of my people as whole. Whether that is accomplished through democratic means or authoritarian dictat, makes utterly no difference to me.

In it's present form, democracy has thoroughly failed in my country, worse, the corruption and incompetence of the politicians and the whole class of bureaucrat parasites that accompany them has even managed to discredit the idea of a sovereign nation in the eyes of many. So if democratically-elected officials cannot get the job done, perhaps exploring alternate forms of government would be in order.

Frankly I'd rather have one dictator to blame for all the nation's failures than a 100 corrupt, incompetent bureaucrats who pretend to run the state, point fingers at each other whenever something goes wrong, and lay blame on the little man just following their orders in the end.

[Distruzio]

You can ask anyone with whom I've debated in previous conversations. I'm not known for ignoring or otherwise turning a blind eye when I'm corrected. The fact is that I did not contradict myself. You may still disagree with me, but your response was that I contradicted myself. I did not. I phrased my commentary in a way that avoided that.

Evidently that's not true, as multiple people have interpreted it otherwise.

Multiple people have trouble with reading comprehension and knowledge of how logical fallacies actually work.

[Shaggai]

One of the main benefits of democracy, one which most people are ignoring, is the succession wars. For example, the whole Bush/Gore thing, where Gore declared the election results illegitimate, then raised an army and forcibly deposed Bush.
(hint: that didn't happen.)

You're implying that shouldn't have happened

Well, one can debate the utility of that in that specific case, but in general I'm very happy that the US tends not to be massively destabilized each time a President leaves office. It's probably one of the biggest benefits of democracy.

[Arcov]

You've obviously never heard of Tuskegee then.

Yes, the independent actions of a research organization, that was not given approval by the government, is the equivalent of the institutionalized slaughter of 12 million.

Let me ask you something, do you know who one of the first users of Zyklon B gas was? Take a wild guess. Not Germany, not Italy, not Spain, Russia, or some other tyrannical country. It was America.

It also, to my knowledge, was not the first one do use lethal gas during war-time or on soldiers at all. Germany was the first one to do so. Developing the chemical was not some atrocity, using it was.

And guess who got inspired by this? Germany. During the 20's the KKK numbered almost 12 million + members, it was MASSIVE! Discrimination in the US had been, at BEST, as bad or slightly less bad than what occurred in Nazi Germany, and even then you have to question how many people in Germany actually supported the ill treatment of Jews. It's taken the crimes of Nazi Germany, the civil rights movement and almost 50 years of time to actually bring discrimination down to as low as it is now, and it still hasn't gone away.

You completely ignored what I said and went on an off-topic tangent. This has nothing to do with modern America and I never said discrimination didn't exist in the early and mid 1900s.

Yeah, and it took WW2 and the Civil Rights movement for the US to get to that point! And I'm justifying genocide? Now you're willfully ignoring where I said that I supported Fascism because of how it affected the economy, I never said I supported genocide, nor did I say I felt it justified it.

You are flat out saying you support Nazi Germany as an equal of the US. You never said you supported genocide but sure as hell are apologizing for it.

I would have liked to see Nazi Germany NOT commit genocide and become a strong economic power, but that didn't happen and I'm disappointed. I hate racism more than most other things in this world, so don't try and paint me as a racist.

You can't have Nazi Germany without the racism. It was at the very core racist, that was everything the country was built on.

Strawman. I've been attacking Democracy because you think it's above that. It's not. If I've "defended" anything, it's the UK, and even still I fully recognize it has committed crimes, but I'm not going to let you paint whatever picture you like of it.

You are an apologist. You don't have to support it but you are saying how great it was in these areas. I never said democracy was above that, but you kee pretending I did, because you prefer to say "Oh look, look! It colonized the Philippines! It's as bad as Nazi Germany!", and you make it eve worse by trying to point out the "benefits" of Nazi Germany.

Hence why black people were so horridly abused, because they weren't considered people, and therefore they weren't considered citizens. Also, the UK didn't go on genocidal campaigns against the Natives and almost wipe them out completely, and they weren't given representation, and in many cases weren't considered citizens of the British Empire. How does that make America any more justified?

Stop.

Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself and appearing desperate. Your damn straight, for a long time blacks weren't considered citizens. After that time, the racism had nothing to do with the democratic structures in place. It had everything to do with the society that was there. This wasn't magically gone in the UK, the only reason why their discrimination of blacks is less publicized is because less lived on the isle itself. Unlike the US, blacks were never sent there. There wasn't anywhere near the same oppurtunity for them to be racist.

Stop equating racism with democracy. It shows a complete lack of historical understanding. This whole time this has been the biggest problem with your criticism. I am not defending America's actions internationally. You, however, equate them with democracy. I then point out the UK, a monarchy, did the same, and you then say I am justifying America's actions. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of democracy because monarchy nor democracy are inherently racist. You have a rose-colored opinion of monarchies, simple as that.

Pretending? I KNOW monarchy could do better (at least non-sovereign monarchy) if there was a decent monarch in charge, and attack it as a "one in a million" chance all you like, because democracy isn't any different, you've still got the 1 in a million chance of getting a decent leader.

Without any of the succession wars, political intrigue over lines of succession, and establishment of an entrenched aristocratic elite.

If Norway is one, then Norway. Obviously it didn't succeed in Nazi Germany because they ended the policy after the war ended. How are you supposed to consider it a success or a failure if it was ended? That doesn't even make any sense!

Norway is not a planned economy, and never has been. Nazi Germany was built on war, there is not a single respected historian that disagrees with this. Planned economies are necessary for total war, but not for peace-time, or even smaller wars.

Why, because I said the committed a genocide in Africa?

No, because you might flip to their Imperial days.

I take it as a sign that he was a better leader than nearly every politician Democracy has spawned. He had power to do with as he pleased and he used it responsibly, not something I can say for most leaders. I don't approve of Democracy, but I do approve of Tito.

He was the only one who used the power appropriately, other than Ataturk. The difference between absolutism and democracy, is that democracy assumes the leaders will be self-interested and limits them, while absolutism does the opposite.

So you're saying that Nazi Germany could not have adopted a non-war based economy? Really? Hitler pushed Germany into a war economy because he was planning on a WAR! I don't know what better word I can use to describe this than DUH! And once the war finished, do you think he was just going to keep building tanks? Really? He wouldn't switch to supporting consumer products or something? And furthermore, he could have adopted something closer to the Social Credit system (which I support) which is NOT reliant on war. Basically your whole argument here is based on the idea that he would have held the course, no matter what, which frankly has no basis in history itself so you have no logical idea of what would have happened.

There is no evidence he could have done so successfully. He planned to continue this war-time economy afterwards, because that's what his brand of fascism was built on. The only "civilian" aspect he planned for was moving German farmers into the East to use Slavic slaves. Stop defending Nazi Germany, it is the worst example you can use and is making it look like your whole argument is to appear edgy.

If I remember correctly, it pretty much fell apart while he was still alive. Nikita helped get the Soviet Union more industrialized and more into trade with Soviet nations, if I remember correctly. But if it really was a planned economy the whole time, then I question what it was that killed them in the end, the planned economy, or the liberalization of it.

No, Khrushchev never ended the planned aspect, he ended the self-destroying purges and state built on fear. In the end it failed not because of the economy, but because the social liberalization allowed people to start breaking away.

Which puts people like me in the same place; poor, unable to find a real job, and unable to get financial assistance when we need it. Truly, the wonders of an uncontrolled economy are swirling around me!

As it occurred to you that the problem is a lack of welfare not the lack of a planned economy? There were unemployed in both the USSR and Nazi Germany too. The fact you are using your personal situation as admiration for Hitler is rather disturbing.

Your minimum wage is below what is required to meet the minimum standard of living income. It may not be lassiez-faire, but it's the next worst thing.

It's nowhere close. If you think the US is lasseiz-faire you know nothing about the Industrial era or its history.

And Robespierre.

Who had enough people support him because of the deaths the aristocrats caused.

snip

No, that's why you don't let them leave. The royals had troops coming from foreign monarchies miles away. They were days away from being freed. It's not comparable.

snip

The difference is, the people can affect the system they have today through the democratic process. If they don't want a democracy anymore, than they remove it. This is not the case under a dictatorship.

snip

The nobles were people who, by their very stature, were existing to repress the peasants. In a better time they could have been tried, but they were days from being freed by the Austrians.

snip

He was far more liberal than the previous people behind him, precisely because he eliminated the landed elite that existed before, and instituted a meritocracy. When he declared himself emperor is when the revolution failed, but he helped liberalize all the institutions in Western Europe. He was the lesser of the evils in that regard.