Remember me
▼ Content

What is this Church of Marxism?



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
13-10-2016 01:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.
13-10-2016 03:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.


Your 'solution' is no better. It leaves YOU as dictator. No thanks.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 04:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!
13-10-2016 05:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!


If you say so, O dictator of your Utopia.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.
13-10-2016 09:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.


Define 'unfair' labor.

I thought you said there would be no leaders.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 09:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!


Democracies fail every time they are tried. Usually in a very short space of time.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 09:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.


Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 19:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.


Define 'unfair' labor.


Well, benefiting from other people's labour and undercompensating for that labour is what I meant.

I thought you said there would be no leaders.


Either you or IB has previously insisted that nothing can work without leaders. I am saying, "well, we can still improve it." Isn't a representative democracy better than a dictatorship?

(I am not comparing businesses to a dictatorship. I am saying that leaders do not always need to have power that they do not derive from the consent of the people. And not in the sense of "leave if you don't like me".)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Not I! Certainly not any human being. It would be democratic - directly democratic! No leader at all, let alone a dictator!


Democracies fail every time they are tried. Usually in a very short space of time.


How so? Give an example.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.


Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.


...and how does any other system prevent that? Either the majority's vote is all that matters, because minorities don't have any special voting power, or something else determines what happens. Something with power that was not decided by the people. That would be bad. That takes the power out of the majority's hands and into the hands of a few.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

I think you are confused about Marxist terminology.

What form of government is there in your utopia?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 20:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

I think you are confused about Marxist terminology.

What form of government is there in your utopia?


.


So you're insulting me because I'm not parroting correctly? How funny.

A direct democracy.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm somewhat of an anarcho-syndicalist, which means that I mostly support smaller, democratic forms of government. This is a variant of socialism, and differs from it in a few ways. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." I can see the benefits and flaws of different variants of socialism and communism, and at the moment I support anarcho-syndicalism.

Basically, instead of corporations, we have syndicates. It's sort of like the difference between sometimes-consensual monarchy and direct democracy. Syndicates would work similarly to existing trade unions. If some sort of leader is necessary, then he/she would be elected, similar to representative democracy.

I don't portray most individual CEOs and owners, etc., as immoral because of their position. I think that the system itself is flawed in many ways. People bettering themselves and others is good. People bettering themselves using unfair labour is not.


Define 'unfair' labor.


Well, benefiting from other people's labour and undercompensating for that labour is what I meant.


If that's so, what is the difference for a commune where there is no money to compensate labor with?


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.


Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.


...and how does any other system prevent that? Either the majority's vote is all that matters, because minorities don't have any special voting power, or something else determines what happens. Something with power that was not decided by the people. That would be bad. That takes the power out of the majority's hands and into the hands of a few.


Here you are showing your illiteracy in governmental structures.

A dictator doesn't care about the majority. He only cares about himself.

A democracy only cares about the majority. The minority become oppressed, revolt, and the end result is usually a dictator.

A republic guards the minority using a constitution while giving majority a certain influence. Both minorities and majorities have a say.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 22:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.


If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.
13-10-2016 23:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.


Democracies fail every time BECAUSE the majority gain too much power.


...and how does any other system prevent that? Either the majority's vote is all that matters, because minorities don't have any special voting power, or something else determines what happens. Something with power that was not decided by the people. That would be bad. That takes the power out of the majority's hands and into the hands of a few.


Here you are showing your illiteracy in governmental structures.

Please stop that.
A dictator doesn't care about the majority. He only cares about himself.

True.
A democracy only cares about the majority. The minority become oppressed, revolt, and the end result is usually a dictator.

That is an issue, yes. I believe that you mean a direct democracy; the US is actually a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic.
A republic guards the minority using a constitution while giving majority a certain influence. Both minorities and majorities have a say.

But the interpretation of that Constitution is either done by elected officials or people appointed by such (which means that they're acting as a representative of the majority), or by people who aren't (which means that the power is effectively in the hands of a few). Furthermore, the majority can change the Constitution.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 23:59
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.


If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

So if not the people, who has the power?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 14:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote: Do you even know what democracy is?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

The word "democracy" is the Marxist's preferred euphemism for "Marxism," i.e.

"We must cast down the existing capitalism and install democracy. We cannot have a utopia without democracy. Democracy is what will confiscate the means of production and wealth from the bourgeoisie and redistribute it to the proletariat. After imposing crushing progressive taxes, democracy will crush all remaining vestiges of the economy and outlaw any form of currency."

Yes, I absolutely know what "democracy" means.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 14:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.


If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

So if not the people, who has the power?


The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.

Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.

Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.
14-10-2016 18:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.
14-10-2016 18:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I would never support a dictatorship. I propose a peaceful transition in which the government becomes more local and more democratic. At no point would this result in any one person having more power.

I think you are confused about Marxist terminology.

What form of government is there in your utopia?


.


So you're insulting me because I'm not parroting correctly? How funny.

A direct democracy.

I see you are pretending to be insulted to get out of answering the question that is key to this entire discussion ... and hoping no one notices.

I'll ask again: What form of government is there in your utopia?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 21:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yet again, a direct democracy.
14-10-2016 21:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yet again, a direct democracy.

Great. What does that mean to you? Could you elaborate on how it would work?

I'm still working under the idea that you mean Marxist anarchy without admitting such.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 21:21
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)
14-10-2016 22:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
jwoodward48 wrote: People vote on things.

Formally? .. as in a government sets up polling booths per some constitution?

...or do people informally gather and decide to vote on things?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-10-2016 23:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
As I'm considering this, I think that some form of central organization of sorts would need to be created for this. It wouldn't be the government, though; it wouldn't govern. The people would govern themselves. The notgovernment would simply carry out the decisions of the people. So (ignoring the communist part for a second) if the people decide that taxes should be increased by 10%, then the notgovernment would collect that much more - and be capable of carrying out punishments for tax evasion dependent on what the people have decided.
15-10-2016 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Yes there is. The majority. The majority IS the dictator that takes more and more power away from the minority.

The minority can no longer vote because of the whims of the majority. The majority took away their right to vote. The majority splits again on another issue, make it smaller and smaller, but always the majority. Eventually the 'majority' is only a few people left, or even one.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 03:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)


The issue at hand, presented to the democracy for a vote:

Should the minority be allowed to vote anymore?


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 03:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)


The issue at hand, presented to the democracy for a vote:

Should the minority be allowed to vote anymore?


The Constitutional is crucial in upholding rights. The issue here is that: who is deciding what is or is not Constitutional? Do they derive their power from the people's consent, or no?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 04:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
People vote on things. Individuals can present their opinions and arguments to the population. Then the people vote. These things would be changes in or addition to the policy. The initial policy could be set up thus: individuals suggest things, people vote aye or nay, the most popular things would be voted on in a Great Election in which the composition of the policy would be decided. Delegates and organizers of various things could be elected, but they would not have the power of the current government - the people would decide things, and the new "politicians" would carry those things out, figuring out details if necessary. To make sure that they don't get too much power by adding powerful "tiny details", the end results could also be voted on.

You might argue that this would be annoying and tedious, but:

1. You probably wouldn't have things like: Republicans: "We vote to repeal Obamacare." Obama: "Nope." x60.
2. We already have elections.
3. Since this would be communist too, we would remove the "tedium" of paying taxes, the worry of "will I have enough money to buy food tomorrow," etc.

And after all, tedium isn't really that important. Work can be tedious - should we get rid of that? (Actually, many jobs might be roboticized/replaced by semi-intelligent programs in the middle-future of some hundred years; if a janitor is still needed, it could be one janitor, the head of an army of sensors and robots. This would lead to unemployment in capitalism, but in communism, it would mean that there is less work to be done. Cool!)


The issue at hand, presented to the democracy for a vote:

Should the minority be allowed to vote anymore?


The Constitutional is crucial in upholding rights. The issue here is that: who is deciding what is or is not Constitutional? Do they derive their power from the people's consent, or no?


Sorry, you were arguing for a democracy. There is no constitution. Democracies don't have them.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 05:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Yes there is. The majority. The majority IS the dictator that takes more and more power away from the minority.

The minority can no longer vote because of the whims of the majority. The majority took away their right to vote. The majority splits again on another issue, make it smaller and smaller, but always the majority. Eventually the 'majority' is only a few people left, or even one.


Hmmm... That is a problem. I never claimed that direct democracy was without its flaws. Reading up a bit more, including your posts, I suppose a better solution might be a parliamentary democracy? Sort of like our own system, but not the whole two-party thing, that's bad.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 06:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Yes there is. The majority. The majority IS the dictator that takes more and more power away from the minority.

The minority can no longer vote because of the whims of the majority. The majority took away their right to vote. The majority splits again on another issue, make it smaller and smaller, but always the majority. Eventually the 'majority' is only a few people left, or even one.


Hmmm... That is a problem. I never claimed that direct democracy was without its flaws. Reading up a bit more, including your posts, I suppose a better solution might be a parliamentary democracy? Sort of like our own system, but not the whole two-party thing, that's bad.


Nothing about our system of government is two party. The two major parties you see are the result of democracy. There are other many minor parties.

The protection against the minority is not in the party, but in the constitutions. Seems like I am talking you into believing a republican form of government is the answer after all.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 07:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The system that we have set up is a result of democracy. We have two systems, and the effects of this can be detrimental, but it might be even worse to abandon the representation altogether. After all, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So finding some way to foster a less polarized system could be better. I'm not sure if a parliament would achieve this.

The protection for the minority is definitely codified in the Constitution, but the representative form of the government also results in a less volatile governing body, which happens to protect against the fickle whims of the minority. So we've got two protections in our system, one of which is explicit.
15-10-2016 14:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.

You will be in the minority on lots of issues.

We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.
15-10-2016 17:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.

You will be in the minority on lots of issues.

We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.


I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 17:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, they weren't democratic. Of ****ing course, giving the state control of capitalism while it doesn't adequately represent the people is a bad idea. If we do it better, as in "actually have democracy," it'll be better.

Most Communist countries were the result of violent uprising. The time wasn't right. The country wasn't ready for a peaceful transition, and so some people took control in order to switch everything over to Communism. What we've seen is that "a small group of people having control of the government" is a bad thing. Which is obvious.


If you keep the democratic freedoms of liberty to enjoy the fruits of your own efforts then you don't have communism.

Do you even know what democracy is?
To give the state, even when its' controled by the majority, that much power will be bad.

So if not the people, who has the power?


The reason why Egyptian and Columbian democracy has generally failed is that the systems in these nations has allowed the victor of the election too much power. That by winning you can use your power to take from the losing side without the idea of basic rights needing to be upheld in the face of the vote of the people.

Its' a very complex thing. It needs checks and balances. Just making it a race to be dictator is a very bad thing.

Which is why capitalism is so far the least worst economic system going. Because it gives us all the power to do with our own money what we chose.


First of all, the "democratic freedoms of liberty" makes absolutely no sense.

Second, let's say that the public wants to outlaw Hinduism. That's obviously against the Constitution. But whoever's standing in the public's way must derive their power from the consent of the people who elected them. If the public really wants something to happen, and this is true for a hundred years, it might happen - any sane person would have been elected out years ago, all the sane SC judges are dead, etc.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
15-10-2016 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The system that we have set up is a result of democracy. We have two systems, and the effects of this can be detrimental, but it might be even worse to abandon the representation altogether. After all, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So finding some way to foster a less polarized system could be better. I'm not sure if a parliament would achieve this.

We already have TWO 'parliaments'. They are the House and the Senate.

Don't worry about the two party system. If enough people get on board with a third party, it will happen by itself. No change in our government or any of its constitutions is required for this.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The protection for the minority is definitely codified in the Constitution, but the representative form of the government also results in a less volatile governing body, which happens to protect against the fickle whims of the minority. So we've got two protections in our system, one of which is explicit.

The fickle whims of the minority? No, the fickle whims of the majority.


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9896)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wait, what? That's not direct democracy. I'm supporting direct democracy. There is no leader in direct democracy, let alone a dictator.


Direct democracy without checks and balances will allow the majority to dictate their will to the rest of us.

You will be in the minority on lots of issues.

We elect representitives because lots of subjects require a deep level of understanding that we don't all have the time to give. It is therefore better to have people who we trust do most of it for us.


I don't trust either Hillary or Trump. What now?


You might not, but a lot of people do. Enough that these two are the only ones viable enough to win.

You can either join, hold and your nose, and vote the candidate closest to your ideals, or throw your vote away on someone closer to your ideals but doesn't have enough support to be viable.

I think most of the country will be holding their nose this year when they vote.



The Parrot Killer
15-10-2016 23:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The system that we have set up is a result of democracy. We have two systems, and the effects of this can be detrimental, but it might be even worse to abandon the representation altogether. After all, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. So finding some way to foster a less polarized system could be better. I'm not sure if a parliament would achieve this.

We already have TWO 'parliaments'. They are the House and the Senate.

Don't worry about the two party system. If enough people get on board with a third party, it will happen by itself. No change in our government or any of its constitutions is required for this.

Good point.
[quote
jwoodward48 wrote:
The protection for the minority is definitely codified in the Constitution, but the representative form of the government also results in a less volatile governing body, which happens to protect against the fickle whims of the minority. So we've got two protections in our system, one of which is explicit.

The fickle whims of the minority? No, the fickle whims of the majority.[/quote]
Mistype. Yes, I meant the fickle whims of the majority.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate What is this Church of Marxism?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Church of Global Warming Community630-10-2019 19:49
Marxism, Climate and Utter Dishonesty6401-10-2019 06:40
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus8826-09-2019 05:49
The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus and Mercury418-09-2019 22:37
Amy Kloubuchar uses snow to prove there is climate change. Now that's top level Marxism.613-02-2019 23:05
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact