Reforming Democracy

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iOVroDmWcs[/youtube]

The solution of more restrictions because of the overreach/spending of the government is fixing the problem with a greater problem. Letting go of the problems China is having with their population control (I don’t know that the US has the same sec bias, though I could be wrong about that.). There is still a problem of enforcement, it will cost to perform any surgeries. If we are only working on a social security number basis, it is remarkably easy just to not report them on your tax return. If the parent gets pregnant, but does not want to pay for the child, just put the child in a foster home, the price gets put on the government again. If a person can’t afford to pay, does killing the child become a bigger option. Especially if they still have to pay even if the child is being taken care by some one else. And I can go on, I am stopping because ideally you get the point.

This would just create one more way for politicians to take advantage in one way or another. I can only increase costs, as it is one more regulation, which included monitoring the regulation, people fighting against it, etc… And the entire time no proof has been provided that it does anything more than mark on more ring of the death toll of the culture that buy’s into it. The other cultures that don’t, have more kids, and at the very least, take over via human power… Which knowledge, that I am talking about, is based on. The more people the more knowledge, because more experience - This is where wealth comes from.

China keeps up with the us on some levels, almost entirely because of their huge labor abilities… They would be better off if they removed their communist politics, and let their nation, their people, be free…

This idea also puts a limit on the amount of knowledge. We don’t what the future holds. These solutions are often promoted by people that assume they understand, they do not. They are a limited human being, like everyone else.

[size=150]No![/size]

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The “restriction” you mentioned refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control (“oh”, you may think, “China!”, but it is not like “China”) and not to the regulation itself. China’s regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, … and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and “for us” ( :wink: ) via dictatorship.

It is possible to do it via market.

In this case refering to China means distracting from the subject, and refering only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dicatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.

I’ve never been to the US and the distance from my Saltus Teutoburgiensis to New York is about 6000 Kilometres (air-line distance). So would you please explain me the seemingly typical US dualism of “conservative”/“liberal” because I think that this dualism is merely a show.

I went through and did a search for “conservativism” in this thread and it begins to take a huge rise in frequency around here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=185699&start=250#p2477284.

Thank you. But in that text it is not much said about the difference between “conservative in US” and “liberal in US”. Please note: I know the meaning of “conservative in US” and “liberal in US” very well; so my question is merely: “Does the difference between “conservative in US” and “liberal in US” really exist?” And my answer is: No - because it is only show (of the rulers, not of the people).

Yes, but that’s where the discussion gets into conservativism and liberalism pretty thick–it’s from that post onward where Ucci and Eric begin explaining to me the difference.

So you’re saying that the “rulers” of the US (The Republicans and the Democrats) are putting on a show for the rest of the world–claiming that the US is divided between liberals and conservative–when really the people themselves could care less about the distinction? Well, unless Eric, Ucci, Liz, and UPF are members of the Republican or Democratic party themselves, I’d say they’ve demonstrated a very passionate concern about these issues. And why wouldn’t the left-wing and right-wing stances that each party presents to the world be representative of the stances of the people themselves, especially when parties like the Republicans and the Democrats come about because the people want to put what they stand for into politics and therefore form these parties to serve and represent themselves?

Yes, I am saying (questioning) that.

They are not powerful enough; so they aren’t “putting on a show for the rest of the world”, but fore themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.

What of people like Eric, Ucci, Liz, and UPF? Are they party members? Are they stooges? Brainwashed?

Counter questions:

Do you know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
And if you don’t know it (99% also don’t know it) are you then no longer a member of your boss’ company?, or are you then “brainwashed”?

Uh… no. Care to explain where you’re going with this?

Are you no longer a member of your boss’ company, if you don’t know what your boss is doing when he is at home?
Are you brainwashed, if you don’t know what your boss is doing when he is at home?

99% of all concern or company members do not know what their boss is doing when he is at home. Are they all brainwashed?

You claimed that the difference between liberals and conservatives doesn’t really exist, that it’s all a show put on by the leaders of the US; but if the people are brainwashed to believe it’s real, and therefore engage in heated discussions on the issue, it becomes real.

The people don’t have to be brainwashed, most of them believe it’s real anyway. You may call it “brainwashing”, I call it “influence” because influence is always there, but “brainwashing” is a very extreme form of all affects. You are influenced but usually not brainwashed by your boss (I hope so [-o< ). Party members are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their leadership. People are influenced but usually not brainwashed by their government, their media, … and so on. This all depends on the societal system and its political system, especially the form of government; and if those systems are extreme, then the probability of brainwashing is very high.

So we have to ask whether the societal situation in the US, or elsewhere, even in the world ( :open_mouth: ), is already extreme.

So there isn’t really such a thing as socialists who believe practically the opposite of everything I do when it comes to economics, culture, and ethics, I’ve merely been tricked by (who, other conservatives I guess?) into thinking there is? What kind of absurdity is this?

Look, Arminius, you proposed a global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce. I think that’s a terrible idea. Unless you want to admit that you don’t really think these things, or you’re a wizard who can peer into my mind and discern that I don’t really disagree with you, there is a difference and it is real. I don’t see how it’s even up for dispute.

Capitalism is the pre-condition for socialism. Without capital there is nothing to share, to redistribute.

Absurd is what you are saying. I have never said anything about “beurocracy”, but you have, and that’s absurd “rhetoric”.

That’s nonsense. I didn’t say that. You presume it, and that is terrible. I have said several times that the reproduction should be “regulatied” by the market. The current demographic policy is regulated by a “global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce” (your words) - it is the declared goal of all global institutions to reduce the population. So what I want to do is nothing else than change this dictatorship of gloabl institutions into a market. It is that beurocracy of the global institutions which costs a lot of money.

Maybe you haven’t read my posts. I recommend you to do it.

Then you think wrong! Please read my posts!

If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this global beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

You have no idea, Uccisore. The deep forests in Maine are perhaps too deep, at least deeper than my Saltus Teutoburgiensis. :slight_smile:

Another fact is that this theme / topic - reproduction / demography - is a taboo for the people (and not for their rulers). But if we want to talk about it we have to mention the facts. Do you believe that there is no global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction? If so, then you have really no idea. Excuse me. Ignorance is horrible.

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? People around me decide to have or refrain from having kids every day, there is no global beurocracy that stops them or requires them at present. Their only external consideration is whether or not they can afford to raise the child- i.e., whether or not they have children is determined by the markets.

Right, and there’s no actual difference between conservatives and liberals. Sorry, you’re too incoherent for me to really interact with further.

I don’t think that makes a difference to my point–brainwashed, influenced–the point I was making was that it becomes real as soon as the people start fighting over the issues. But I get the feeling we’re getting away from your original point: were you originally trying to say that the leaders create the issues initially at a time when the people don’t actually have any issues to fight over, and then over time the people end up believing they need to fight over it?

That’s because you are a member of a political party! A PARTY!

You are not interested in philosophy, you are interested in kaffee klatsch and some “ideals” of political parties. Okay, I see; so: good bye.

You and your political party and all other political parties support the global bureaucracy!

People “around you do not decide to have or refrain from having kids every day” because they “decide” according to what is regulated by the global institutions and “think” (!) it were their own “decision”. There is a global bureaucracy that regulates anything and everything, and the “national states” have to implement what the global bureaucracy dictates (and it does dictate!). What you are saying, Uccisore, is nonsense, and you believe in this nonsense. Whether or not humans, especially Western humans, have children is determined by the global bureaucracy and the regulated markets. The people are not “free” - this is merely what your party leaders always say, have to say -, and there is no real democracy.

It is just your megalomania that makes you think people were “free” or have a “free will”. Humans are not “free” and do not have a “free will”. You are not “free”; no human is “free”; humans do not have a “free will”, but merely a relative free will.

You are more influenced, affected, as you think.

My solution of the demographic problem leads to more market!

Do you believe in the management technique of subtly influencing the masses such as to get them to want for what you choose?

Interestingly, I recall Ucci saying that this is exactly what the Marxists in your country are doing. So maybe the Democrats engineered this difference between conservatives and liberals by, strictly speaking, creating liberalism… but then conservatism would have to be a reaction to this on the part of the people, not a manufactured group to be pitted against the liberals.

I have to say however, that according to this theory, the master-minds behind this are not necessarily the Democrats themselves but the Marxists whom, Ucci tells us, are running the show ideologically from behind university pulpits. Marx died one and a half centuries ago; the current members of the Democratic party weren’t even alive then. There’s no reason to believe the current members of the Democratic party aren’t just from the same population of citizens who were duped (brainwashed, influenced) by Marxists from an earlier generation, and as American citizens, fervently believed (possibly also because they were brainwashed) that America was a country in which anyone could enter politics and change the world for the better (as they understood “better”) and so tried it out. Most likely, the truth is that the Democratic party has at least a few full blown (and secretive?) Marxists but I don’t see how you could escape it being a mix of a whole bunch of different persuasions, personalities, ideologies, and agendas. Someone who merely wants to put in some form of public health care, for example, might join the Democratic party because, hey, if there’s any party who’ll support him in this agenda, it would be the Democrats. You don’t need to be part of a secret Marxist plot in order to do that, you just need them backing you up (and possibly not even know they’re Marxists).

One thing I’ve been meaning to ask Ucci is if he could relay some of his experiences with the professors he claims to have been taught by, the ones he says were examples of the outspoken Marxists dominating the universities in his country. ← There, I did it. :slight_smile: