the limits of fascism

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:20 amMatthew 12:34

"... For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
I get that. The problem with death is not that you die, it is that you will be tortured for eternity in: “the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.” Perhaps the Lord in his infinite wisdom will spare me that.
Anyway, in answer to whether you accept that Joe Biden won the election, you say:
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:38 pmWere I American, the democracy would allow for opposition and dissent. So the idea that the loser in an election is obligated to capitulate or change his opinion just misunderstands democracy completely. All he's obligated to do is not violently overthrow the mandate -- provided that that mandate is truly reflective of the public will, and not of the number of dead people and straw "votes" that could be assembled by manipulators of the process.
In short you still believe that Trump was cheated and the attempted insurrection was a legitimate exercise of democracy.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:40 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:22 amDid I say I was a slave, or had been a slave?

What's your point?
Do you equate democracy with slavery?
Democracy is mob rule.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by tillingborn »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:42 amDemocracy is mob rule.
Yep, along with every other form of government. The advantage of democracy is that there are at least two mobs fighting it out and putting some restraints on the competitions ambitions.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by henry quirk »

tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:30 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:42 amDemocracy is mob rule.
Yep, along with every other form of government. The advantage of democracy is that there are at least two mobs fighting it out and putting some restraints on the competitions ambitions.
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:37 am 4FBE922C-D8B6-491A-A58C-FC83168A194C.jpeg
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:23 am Perhaps the Lord in his infinite wisdom will spare me that.
Why just "perhaps" it, when the Word of God tells you exactly how that can happen?

John 3:36

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”
In short you still believe that Trump was cheated
Time magazine believes he was. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ But it matters not what I believe about that. It's not my country.
...and the attempted insurrection was a legitimate exercise of democracy.
No part of this was anything I ever said.
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:50 pm
tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:23 am...and the attempted insurrection was a legitimate exercise of democracy.
No part of this was anything I ever said.
It follows from this:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:20 amAll he's obligated to do is not violently overthrow the mandate -- provided that that mandate is truly reflective of the public will, and not of the number of dead people and straw "votes" that could be assembled by manipulators of the process.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:50 pm
tillingborn wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:23 am...and the attempted insurrection was a legitimate exercise of democracy.
No part of this was anything I ever said.
It follows from this:
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:20 amAll he's obligated to do is not violently overthrow the mandate -- provided that that mandate is truly reflective of the public will, and not of the number of dead people and straw "votes" that could be assembled by manipulators of the process.
Oh, I can clear that up.

I was simply speaking of what democracy requires, not what I advocate.

Democracy, in theory, does not reject rebellion or refusal when tyranny is being imposed or the democratic process itself is being subverted. It insists that the only legitimate mandate is a democratic mandate, that is, one decided by the authentic vote of the people. There is no democratic duty to ratify a false narrative about that; there is only a democratic duty to ratify a genuine mandate. That's the American pattern: it began with a rebellion under the banner, "No taxation without representation," as I trust you know. The government has to be genuinely representative: if it's not, it's not democratically legitimate, even if it succeeds in seizing power.

And if Biden's win was authentic, then you would be right to say that rebellion would be "undemocratic." On the other hand, if Time magazine and others are right, then the actual "undemocratic" decision would be to capitulate and say nothing. Democratic people ought to object to any "fixing" of the ballot box. And if the election were actually the product of a conspiracy between business, media and the Democrats, then there would be no real distinction in terms of legitimacy between that and the tyranny in the 18th Century colonies. It would still be governance without democratic legitimacy.

As for the fiasco at the Capitol, personally, I don't suppose it served any purpose, save to provide an additional thing for the incumbents to use to claim that all opposition is irrational. In the end, it seems to have failed to serve any democratic objective at all.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506296 time=1617716498 user_id=9431]
[quote=tillingborn post_id=506291 time=1617713915 user_id=7001]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506286 time=1617713454 user_id=9431]

No part of this was anything I ever said.[/quote]It follows from this:[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506193 time=1617668443 user_id=9431]All he's obligated to do is not violently overthrow the mandate -- provided that that mandate is truly reflective of the public will, and not of the number of dead people and straw "votes" that could be assembled by manipulators of the process.[/quote]
[/quote]
Oh, I can clear that up.

I was simply speaking of what [u]democracy[/u] requires, not what [u]I[/u] advocate.

Democracy, in theory, does not reject rebellion or refusal when tyranny is being imposed or the democratic process itself is being subverted. It insists that the only legitimate mandate is a democratic mandate, that is, one decided by the [u]authentic[/u] vote of the people. There is no democratic duty to ratify a false narrative about that; there is only a democratic duty to ratify a genuine mandate. That's the American pattern: it began with a rebellion under the banner, "No taxation without representation," as I trust you know. The government has to be genuinely representative: if it's not, it's not democratically legitimate, even if it succeeds in seizing power.

And if Biden's win was authentic, then you would be right to say that rebellion would be "undemocratic." On the other hand, if [i]Time[/i] magazine and others are right, then the actual "undemocratic" decision would be to capitulate and say nothing. Democratic people ought to object to any "fixing" of the ballot box. And if the election were actually the product of a conspiracy between business, media and the Democrats, then there would be no real distinction in terms of legitimacy between that and the tyranny in the 18th Century colonies. It would still be governance without democratic legitimacy.

As for the fiasco at the Capitol, personally, I don't suppose it served any purpose, save to provide an additional thing for the incumbents to use to claim that all opposition is irrational. In the end, it seems to have failed to serve any democratic objective at all.
[/quote]

Who gave you permission to be rational in some posts and moronic in others? Stop it!
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Sculptor »

Trump Fundraising Scam: repeat billing cheat.

Fascism is not limited to single point billing.
It tends to cheat with repeat Billing..


https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=44911 ... &ref=notif
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:41 pmDemocracy, in theory, does not reject rebellion or refusal when tyranny is being imposed or the democratic process itself is being subverted. It insists that the only legitimate mandate is a democratic mandate, that is, one decided by the authentic vote of the people. There is no democratic duty to ratify a false narrative about that; there is only a democratic duty to ratify a genuine mandate. That's the American pattern: it began with a rebellion under the banner, "No taxation without representation," as I trust you know. The government has to be genuinely representative: if it's not, it's not democratically legitimate, even if it succeeds in seizing power.
Very few countries even pretend to be "genuinely representative". Both the UK and the US have systems by which the party with the greatest number of elected representatives, MPs and Senators, gets to hold power. That is not always a reflection of "the authentic vote of the people", if by that you mean the majority choice. The Republican Party has only won the popular vote once this century, unless you still believe the nonsense peddled by the likes of Sidney Powell, Rudolph Giuliani, Fox News and Newsmax, all of whom have had to retract any specific allegations for fear of being sued. Trump knows that perfectly well, it is why he could say "I just want to find 11780 votes", rather than the 7 million or so by which he lost the popular vote.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Apr 06, 2021 2:41 pmAnd if Biden's win was authentic, then you would be right to say that rebellion would be "undemocratic." On the other hand, if Time magazine and others are right, then the actual "undemocratic" decision would be to capitulate and say nothing. Democratic people ought to object to any "fixing" of the ballot box. And if the election were actually the product of a conspiracy between business, media and the Democrats, then there would be no real distinction in terms of legitimacy between that and the tyranny in the 18th Century colonies. It would still be governance without democratic legitimacy.
Welcome to the real world. Authentic or not, Biden is in the White House, therefore he won.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:23 amVery few countries even pretend to be "genuinely representative".
Even with democracy, there are inherent problems, such as how the interests of a town or province are to be recognized. And there are no perfect solutions. As Churchill (or some say others) once said," Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other."
Welcome to the real world. Authentic or not, Biden is in the White House, therefore he won.
Well, no.

"Won" is a term that only applies to an actual democratic mandate. It does not sanctify a cheat.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506428 time=1617800861 user_id=9431]
As Churchill (or some say others) once said," Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other."
[/quote]

Churchill was an idealogue who, like you, believed any version of socialism he didn't like was the "real" socialism. He also starved millions of Indians to death. Maybe don't quote Churchill, unless you also want to quote they likes of the Kims, or Hitler.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:29 pm Churchill was an idealogue who, like you, believed any version of socialism he didn't like was the "real" socialism.
Tell, me, then...what is the difference between your "Socialism" and "the Socialism he didn't like."
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by tillingborn »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:07 pm
tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:23 amVery few countries even pretend to be "genuinely representative".
Even with democracy, there are inherent problems, such as how the interests of a town or province are to be recognized. And there are no perfect solutions. As Churchill (or some say others) once said," Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other."
As I said to Henry Quirk, "The advantage of democracy is that there are at least two mobs fighting it out and putting some restraints on the competitions ambitions." Any political party is a coalition of different interest groups, all of which are jostling for influence, but united by a common enemy. Towns and provinces have to argue, work or fight for their interests along with everyone else. There are very few examples of power freely being given away by those holding it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:07 pm
Welcome to the real world. Authentic or not, Biden is in the White House, therefore he won.
Well, no.

"Won" is a term that only applies to an actual democratic mandate. It does not sanctify a cheat.
All politics is a cheat. The winners are the best cheats.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the limits of fascism

Post by Immanuel Can »

tillingborn wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:55 pm There are very few examples of power freely being given away by those holding it.
Indeed so. And that's why things like term limits, divided spheres of authority, and a genuinely democratic vote matter.
All politics is a cheat. The winners are the best cheats.
Well, there's an irony, then: if "all politics is a cheat," then no current government is legitimate. But that does nothing to make the cheaters the same as legitimate government.
Post Reply