the limits of fascism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:50 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:27 pm I was talking about Legitimate power, and you're talking about Arbitrary power.
Yeah. Right. Like giving ANYBODY unrestricted power of indeterminate length is going to turn out any better. :roll:

Name one person worthy of the kind of trust you wish to invest. Name one person who is incapable of becoming "arbitrary." Where is this incorruptible angel you have discovered?
You wouldn't recognize them.
You wouldn't find him.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10681
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

In the ideal, one person one vote, of course. But democracy of that kind only works on the local scale.

Doesn't even work then.

Consider, Guerra, TX, population: 6.

Five vote to install a new stop sign at the dusty 4-way. All six are expected to pay for the shiny, new octagon.

The sixth resident (oh, let's call him Henry) sez, screw that...we don't need a new stop sign and I ain't droppin' one damn dime into it.

Old one-eye'd Henry, who doesn't even drive, is expected to fork over money just cuz the mob sez so?

Shootin' wars have started from such obvious theft.

The starkness of such robbery, however, gets covered up when populations grow and the unscrupulous move in...honest discourse becomes rhetoric, agendas are given the veneer of marketing, and legislators become distant (my mayor works two miles from my home...I can give him the what-for, face to face, any time I like; my senators, reps, and that friggin' houseplant, not a one of them is accessible in any real way).

No, on any scale: democracy is a bad idea.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:13 pm In the ideal, one person one vote, of course. But democracy of that kind only works on the local scale.

Doesn't even work then.

No, on any scale: democracy is a bad idea.
Well, this is why we say, "It's the worst system, except for every other system."

If civilization is going to exist at all, there has to be some means of mutual problem-solving. The ideal would be "making everybody happy all the time." But since that can't happen, "Giving everybody an equal vote, and living with the consequences" is, perhaps, the second-best option... and more practical.

If that's not workable, then civilization itself doesn't really work. Because "give all the power to the government" or "submerge the individual within the collective" are both very bad options.
gaffo
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:47 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:09 am whyy doe God's son get to decend to hell and save all those that liveved bfoer his tim
You won't find that said in the Bible. There is a later clerical tradition that says that happened. But we're actually on no grounds with that.


ok - thanks for rely - so lets talk and assume you are right on this (I don't think you are i think peter 2 was written to an audiences that had parents and grandparents that they loved and worried that being born too early were bound for hell and the author of peter 2 reassured them that Jesus wopuld go to hell to save them - my oppinion) - but ok lets assume that peter 2 does not talk about that.

so all souls born before Chrsit - what would that be - equall to all those born and living today - or more? - all of them being born "too early" to be saved - since they existed before your Chrsit in order to be saved while alive on earht (and you say they were denied this after their death) - why would a christian "loving God" create 7 billion souls to life here on Earth for 70 yrs or so only to die and end up in Hell forever?

why not create Jesus as Adam? why not have not have 7 billlion folks lving here and dying without redeption - here on earth?

only a non loving God would create 7 billion souls to be born - here opn earth - to end up in hell forever - why? all before Christs time - why - for shits and giggles of an asshole YHWH?

yes?!!!!!!!!!!!!

otherwise your Christ wold have been born in Adams time and all born after Christ would have the opponunity for salvation upon hearing his woprd - guess what bubba your Christ was born after 7 billion souls lived and died and never heard his word - and os accodingf to your sit in hell forever - why? for being born too early and nothing more.

ya "ya "god of love " my ass.
Belinda
Posts: 4781
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:13 pm In the ideal, one person one vote, of course. But democracy of that kind only works on the local scale.

Doesn't even work then.

Consider, Guerra, TX, population: 6.

Five vote to install a new stop sign at the dusty 4-way. All six are expected to pay for the shiny, new octagon.

The sixth resident (oh, let's call him Henry) sez, screw that...we don't need a new stop sign and I ain't droppin' one damn dime into it.

Old one-eye'd Henry, who doesn't even drive, is expected to fork over money just cuz the mob sez so?

Shootin' wars have started from such obvious theft.

The starkness of such robbery, however, gets covered up when populations grow and the unscrupulous move in...honest discourse becomes rhetoric, agendas are given the veneer of marketing, and legislators become distant (my mayor works two miles from my home...I can give him the what-for, face to face, any time I like; my senators, reps, and that friggin' houseplant, not a one of them is accessible in any real way).

No, on any scale: democracy is a bad idea.
But old one-eyed Henry who does not even vote can and should vote.It is true that democracy is a blunt instrument for governing a country and old one-eyed Henry will not profit from it in some ways. However democracy is the only way the powerless can be sure of being listened to, and laws refined so as to be fairer to minorities such as Old Henry and Co. Under a democratic regime Old Henry can help to remove populist politicians who control the information media, once people see those are self-seeking individuals.

I agree local politicians are more accessible but they too might be self-seeking unless Old Henry and Co watch their every move.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:33 am But old one-eyed Henry who does not even vote can and should vote.
Why? If the polity only provides two horrible candidates, why is Henry morally obligated to support one? That doesn't follow. What's the choice, in that case? The puppet on the Left or the stuffed shirt on the right?
...democracy is the only way the powerless can be sure of being listened to, and laws refined so as to be fairer to minorities such as Old Henry and Co. Under a democratic regime Old Henry can help to remove populist politicians who control the information media, once people see those are self-seeking individuals.
How has that worked in the US in the last election? Does anybody hold the Dems responsible for the people their new policy is killing, making vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and orphaning on the border? Just how does Henry get to "remove" Biden and his cronies?
I agree local politicians are more accessible but they too might be self-seeking unless Old Henry and Co watch their every move.
Any politician might become self-seeking. But local ones answer to local voters. That means they are more closely watched, and the consequences of misbehaviour are visited on them more immediately and directly.

Does anybody today see our national politicians behaving in a way that is "accountable"? Their remove from their local constituencies gives them a feeling of invincibility and of freedom from scrutiny.
Belinda
Posts: 4781
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Does anybody today see our national politicians behaving in a way that is "accountable"? Their remove from their local constituencies gives them a feeling of invincibility and of freedom from scrutiny.
Democracy in modern times depends on an educated electorate. Besides good schools and tertiary education, for democracy to work as it can work, there has to be openness in government affairs so that documentation can be readily inspected, and so that investigative journalism and whistleblowing are honoured.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10681
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:57 pm
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:13 pm In the ideal, one person one vote, of course. But democracy of that kind only works on the local scale.

Doesn't even work then.

No, on any scale: democracy is a bad idea.
Well, this is why we say, "It's the worst system, except for every other system."

If civilization is going to exist at all, there has to be some means of mutual problem-solving. The ideal would be "making everybody happy all the time." But since that can't happen, "Giving everybody an equal vote, and living with the consequences" is, perhaps, the second-best option... and more practical.

If that's not workable, then civilization itself doesn't really work. Because "give all the power to the government" or "submerge the individual within the collective" are both very bad options.
What is civilization and why do we need to vote on it?

Why is votin' the ideal method of communal problem-solvin'?

Why are any problems communal?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10681
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:33 am
henry quirk wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:13 pm In the ideal, one person one vote, of course. But democracy of that kind only works on the local scale.

Doesn't even work then.

Consider, Guerra, TX, population: 6.

Five vote to install a new stop sign at the dusty 4-way. All six are expected to pay for the shiny, new octagon.

The sixth resident (oh, let's call him Henry) sez, screw that...we don't need a new stop sign and I ain't droppin' one damn dime into it.

Old one-eye'd Henry, who doesn't even drive, is expected to fork over money just cuz the mob sez so?

Shootin' wars have started from such obvious theft.

The starkness of such robbery, however, gets covered up when populations grow and the unscrupulous move in...honest discourse becomes rhetoric, agendas are given the veneer of marketing, and legislators become distant (my mayor works two miles from my home...I can give him the what-for, face to face, any time I like; my senators, reps, and that friggin' houseplant, not a one of them is accessible in any real way).

No, on any scale: democracy is a bad idea.
But old one-eyed Henry who does not even vote can and should vote.It is true that democracy is a blunt instrument for governing a country and old one-eyed Henry will not profit from it in some ways. However democracy is the only way the powerless can be sure of being listened to, and laws refined so as to be fairer to minorities such as Old Henry and Co. Under a democratic regime Old Henry can help to remove populist politicians who control the information media, once people see those are self-seeking individuals.

I agree local politicians are more accessible but they too might be self-seeking unless Old Henry and Co watch their every move.
Explain why governance (instead of the proxy which serves solely to redress violations to life, liberty, or property) is necessary?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:06 pm What is civilization and why do we need to vote on it?
Any two people with distinct identities constitute a problem that needs to be solved: they don't always agree. Add one more, assuming they are a person of equal value, and you have a bigger problem. Add a few more, and the problem is one of civilization: what are the bunch of you going to do with situations of disagreement?
Why is votin' the ideal method of communal problem-solvin'?
It's not, really. But we live in an imperfect world, and in an imperfect world, it's often to be preferred over the domination by one person.
Why are any problems communal?
They're not, if we don't live in groups, and don't hold anything in common.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10681
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Any two people with distinct identities constitute a problem that needs to be solved: they don't always agree. Add one more, assuming they are a person of equal value, and you have a bigger problem. Add a few more, and the problem is one of civilization: what are the bunch of you going to do with situations of disagreement?

Gimme a specific example, sumthin' I can dissect...pick sumthin' hard.

As of now, I have to say if Joe wants A and Stan doesn't, then Joe has the option of goin' it alone, and if goin' it alone isn't an option then Joe is outta luck.

Fundamentally, no man or group of men, get to decide what another group of men do with their lives, liberty or property, or what even a single man does with his life, liberty, or property, which is why I advocate for the minarchist proxy.

Certainly, democracy offers expediency and mebbe efficiency but at a horrible price.

The Night Watchman proxy leaves men to figure it out for themselves without the threat of the mob constantly at the back. It stands as I say elsewhere as the insurance you hope never to use but are glad you have. It does nuthin' till there is a complaint of life, liberty, or property violation. It does not organize the transactions between and among men.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:03 pm Gimme a specific example, sumthin' I can dissect...pick sumthin' hard.
Actually, it starts very simply, so that should make it easy.

Let's say there are a dozen people in a group. Chances are, they'll disagree on any project they undertake in common...or, at least some of them will. Maybe they'll think it should be done faster, or done a different way, or not done yet, or not done at all...it doesn't matter what they disagree on.

How do we resolve it, without resorting to some version of "Might makes right"?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:51 pm ... investigative journalism and whistleblowing are honoured.
Not in our society, they're not. Conformist revisionist writing, not reporting, is valued here. And whistleblowing can get you run out of the country.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 10681
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

Let's say there are a dozen people in a group. Chances are, they'll disagree on any project they undertake in common...or, at least some of them will. Maybe they'll think it should be done faster, or done a different way, or not done yet, or not done at all...it doesn't matter what they disagree on.

Depends...

12 men, workin' for a company, given a project, might organize themselves democratically, or might be told Stan is in charge, or whatever. How individuals choose to organize themselves isn't my concern cuz they can't make me participate or absorb the cost or consequence of their work. And not a one is bound to participate in sumthin' they deem wrong. I quit along with I won't is permissable, mebbe even obligatory, if an objection is solid.

12 men, legislatiors, ought to be hung before any can even suggest sumthin' I may oppose but will be forced to live with. This is the meat of it, the democracy I oppose. It is legitimized coercion, legal plunder, as Bastiat put it.

Theft and slavery.

12 property owners sharin' a common -- and massively weird -- boundary may organize themselves as they like to accomplish a thing, usually thru contract. So: don't enter into contract with another unless you're willin' to abide, cuz if you don't, you'll get sued. And if any of the 12 choose not to have dealin' with the others, the others will have to make do without him, or make do without the project results.

You don't get to do with a man's life, liberty, and property as you like, no matter how noble the cause.

You can ask and tempt, but when he issues his final no accept it and move on...make do without him or make do without that which cannot be done without him.

If the cause is true, the project worthy, he'll shake your hand and work beside you.

If it's false or a waste, leave him be to not chase after ghosts and sparrow farts.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11638
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:31 pmYou don't get to do with a man's life, liberty, and property as you like, no matter how noble the cause.

You can ask and tempt,...
Well, democracy, I suppose, is a way of "asking." Or, if you like, of "tempting" people with policies.

And it's a little better than other alternatives, but far from an ideal solution, because the "ask" is fairly remote. In a group of 12, maybe your voice is fairly important. In a group of a million, not so much. But even to be asked a little is probably better than not being asked at all.

The one thing I do like about it is that of all the available systems, it takes into account the corruptibility of man. By limiting government to strict terms and domains, we keep the worst among us from rising viciously to the top...a trick that Socialism has so far never been able to master.
Post Reply