Reforming Democracy

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:

Probably his party has forbidden him to answer your question. Moreover, today there is party conference again.

I’m kind of insulted. Why don’t you think I’m part of a political party?

Do you really know that I think you’re not a “part of a political party”?

I think that the defitions of the political ideologies are two much twisted in this thread.

Marx was not liberal by any streach of imagination. He was just the opposite. He believed in equality but equality is not liberalism. Capitilism is far more liberal than Marx, in the essence. One can make choice in the capitilism and democracy but not with Marx.

Socialism is liberal to the majority (average or poor). Capitilism is liberal to minority (rich and rare), though less than socialism. Thus, both are strict and liberal at the same time but to the different sections of the society. The crux of the issue lies in striking the right balance. Both extreames are dangerous thus should be avoided. An ideal government must be liberal when it is required but also strict too when it is required.

Leftist slightly misunderstand socialism. Socialism puts some burden on the citizen too, but those very people, who get benifit of the socialism, refuse to own their share of burden. They want that the government alone should own all the responsibilities and let them live freely as they like. Rightiest do not expect much from the government and do not want much interfere from it too.

People become socialist very easily if it is about receiving anything but become hardcore capitilst when it comes to giving something. An economically social becomes cultural capitilist when it comes to him. At that time, he does not want any interfere from the government.

Give me all what i want but do not ask me what i am doing with that.

That is the precise definition of a typical leftist or socialist nowdays. They have been forgotten that socialism deamds return gifts too from all the invitiees to the party.

with love,
sanjay

That’s right.

|_____ Thesis |__ Antithesis __| Synthesis ______|

|___ Liberalism |__ Egalitarianism __| Fraternitism ____|

|| Socialism ___| Globalism _____|
|
| Communism |___________|

This “isms” are totalitarianisms.

Well, that’s even more insulting. You think I’m a party member yet you only call out Ucci? [-(

Have I ever said whether or not you are a member of a party?

Why do you always ask absurd questions, Gib?

By the way:

A “free market” means an absolute free market. That’s logical, even tautological. The “liberal humans” want a “free market”. - Okay, here is one:

When will the next “liberal” party conference start, Gib?

Either way I’m insulted.

That’s a big croc.

Your question is a good one for Eric (it’s his quote).

And do you understand what’s meant by “liberal”?

(BTW, where do you get all your disturbing pics/videos?)

Which “videos” do you mean, Gib?

And do you understand what’s meant by “liberal”?