the limits of fascism

[tillingborn]

Can we not be men and agree a few house rules(?)

Sure, but we don't need democracy for that.

That is democracy.

[Belinda]

Shouldering responsibility is what Jesus did in his lifetime .

Actually, the "responsibility" He literally shouldered was ours.

"...it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore,
And our pains that He carried;
Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted,
Struck down by God, and humiliated.

But He was pierced for our offenses,
He was crushed for our wrongdoings;
The punishment for our well-being was laid upon Him,
And by His wounds we are healed.

All of us, like sheep, have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all
To fall on Him."

(Isaiah 53:4-6)

That is all true and that is why we love and revere certain men and women who have not been deified. Some of these people are obscure nobody remembers them. Others are remembered briefly by people who knew them. These men and women who meet the criteria in your Biblical quotations lived like Jesus of Nazareth lived, sacrificing all they could for love, yet these unknown people have not been deified.

Jesus was not unique as a carrier of our wrongdoings, for historical reasons (Paul and Constantine in particular)he is more famous than most good human beings .

[tillingborn]

Jesus was not unique as a carrier of our wrongdoings, for historical reasons (Paul and Constantine in particular) he is more famous than most good human beings.

What are our wrongdoings that Jesus, or anyone else, carries?

[Belinda]

Jesus was not unique as a carrier of our wrongdoings, for historical reasons (Paul and Constantine in particular) he is more famous than most good human beings.

What are our wrongdoings that Jesus, or anyone else, carries?

Are you naive or something?

[tillingborn]

What are our wrongdoings that Jesus, or anyone else, carries?

Are you naive or something?

Perhaps. Why do you ask?

[Immanuel Can]

Death is not a problem...

Well, I guess, then, that you don't grasp what death really is. But if you say so...

And if you do not accept the result, you are undemocratic.

"Accept the result"? What does that entail, in your view?

Did you do it when Trump was elected?

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus was not unique as a carrier of our wrongdoings...

The Bible does not agree with you about that, of course.

[tillingborn]

Death is not a problem...

Well, I guess, then, that you don't grasp what death really is. But if you say so...

What do you suppose you know about death that I don't?

And if you do not accept the result, you are undemocratic.

"Accept the result"? What does that entail, in your view?

Did you do it when Trump was elected?

Being British I had no say in the matter, but yes. Did you when Biden was elected?

[Immanuel Can]

Death is not a problem...

Well, I guess, then, that you don't grasp what death really is. But if you say so...

What do you suppose you know about death that I don't?

I don't know what you don't know. But for some reason, your understanding of death must be limited, if you don't know that death is a problem.

And if you do not accept the result, you are undemocratic.

"Accept the result"? What does that entail, in your view?

Did you do it when Trump was elected?

Being British I had no say in the matter, but yes. Did you when Biden was elected?

Not being American, I was under no obligation to do so. Do you "accept" (in your sense) Brexit?

Were 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.

[henry quirk]

Can we not be men and agree a few house rules(?)

Sure, but we don't need democracy for that.

That is democracy.

Nope.

Recognizin' the individual's life, liberty, and property are his is not a matter of majority say.

It's a reality.

You don't vote on it. You may have to defend it, assert it, but no votin', no democracy, is required.

[Immanuel Can]

Recognizin' the individual's life, liberty, and property are his is not a matter of majority say.

Darn right.

That's what "unalienable rights" means. It means no other person or group can legitimately and morally separate you from the right you have to life, liberty and property. They can only do it illegitimately and by force.

So it has zippo to do with what people "vote" to do. Unalienable rights are not a product of democracy; they are a pre-existing bedrock reality upon which democracy itself depends for its integrity and stability.

You can't legitimately take a man's life from him (though, of course, he can forfeit his right to live if he tries to take life from somebody else). You can't legitimately curtail his liberty (except to protect the same right for somebody else). And you can't take a man's property without also stealing his life and his liberty.

And why?

Because when people need property or money, they invest their time to get it: they do work. They put some portion of their lives into it. And life is precious: it is finite, fungible, and continually diminishing. It's all a person has.

Their time is their lifespan. They are literally giving up their lifespan in order to get money or property they need in order to live.

If the government or somebody else steals their property or money, they are taking somebody else's time, their life. They are robbing them not just of their "stuff' but of the time it took to get all the "stuff." And they are robbing them of their right to invest their lifespan as they choose.

That's slavery. In slavery, one person does the work and somebody more powerful decides how to spend the money; somebody more powerful takes their time and work. In Socialism, exactly the same thing happens. You work, you give up your time for the money and property you need in order to survive, and instead of getting to do with it as you would decide, the government steals it and spends it as it wants.

[tillingborn]

But for some reason, your understanding of death must be limited, if you don't know that death is a problem.

One of the despicable things about Christians is that they cannot even grant non-believers peace. Is it not enough that non-Christians die, but they must be punished for eternity for not agreeing with you. No God of love would countenance that.

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.

Are you arguing for proportional representation?

[Immanuel Can]

But for some reason, your understanding of death must be limited, if you don't know that death is a problem.

One of the despicable things about Christians is that they cannot even grant non-believers peace.

Isaiah 48:22. “There is no peace for the wicked,” says the Lord."

Are you arguing for proportional representation?

No.

[tillingborn]

Recognizin' the individual's life, liberty, and property are his is not a matter of majority say.

It's a reality.

You don't vote on it. You may have to defend it, assert it, but no votin', no democracy, is required.

What wretched situation are you in that those things are a concern? Do you live in a place where your life, liberty and property are not yours?

[tillingborn]

One of the despicable things about Christians is that they cannot even grant non-believers peace.

Isaiah 48:22. “There is no peace for the wicked,” says the Lord."

Then in what sense is the Lord merciful?

Are you arguing for proportional representation?

No.

Fair enough. Is there a version of democracy you would advocate?