Drift, we all know that you’re right.
But your “right” – is desire for balance and improvement.
Desire doesn’t get things done, especially when they are currently impossible…
Oh well, keep on tryin.
impossible? from/by/of man perhaps.
unless the media inform the public of the truth, and the public demands altruism from the people it votes for.
why do you think the feudal lords hated the printing press so much? i dont think you can say ‘never’ if we have been getting closer to it at an accelerating rate ever since then.
Explain pls.
Why do you persist in using more than one identity? That is a much more pertinent question that your one about my choice of avatar. I can do whatever I like, I’ve consistently had great avatars since I’ve been here (I’m not denying that others have also, I’m just making the point) and I won’t have some two-faced whippersnapper criticise me…
Dan/Drift,
It depends, if one had strong enough principles (humans is capable of creating such principles) that could be enforced well enough (I’m thinking of automated security, ED 209s, that sort of thing) then the state could well be at least superior to the average human, a shining light if you will…
Propaganda only goes so far, the threat of violence is much more effective…
Power is responsibility, but all ultimately only exist by consent. The powerful leader is the one who can be seen to deal with opposition, dissent, threats and so on in a manner that ‘sends a signal’ to the rest of the state…
Structurally there is little difference between fascism, communism, capitalist democracy, monarchy and so on. All maintain the theme of centralised power, of oligarchy prior to all other structures.
A ruler takes power. How that ruler maintains power is through their relations with those over whom they rule. If they achieve a certain amount of consent, or at least apathy, then they maintain their power. Look at Saddam before the latest war in Iraq.
Democracy is no different, well, representative democracy is no different. Basically all ‘universal suffrage’ means is that the public argues amongst themselves about who they are going to vote for every 4 or 5 years (politics) while some other people actually run things (government).
Thanks allot mod-god.
Me & Drift are sharring a lan network connection; you haven’t been the first to think 2 people, same ip = multiple forum accounts by one person.
Drift didn’t want me to tell anyone that I had anything to do with him, because of how opposite his views are to mine in many areas; yes, he is ashamed of me.
Could, or did & will?
What motive does the state have for bettering the people, compared to the will of the people to better themselves? And which one has a stronger natural desire to do this?
I wont believe that others like me more then I like myself; I will not believe that others can control me better then I can control myself. I will not believe that a might makes right, in any hierarchy.
As usual, a method of diverting powers.
TheMan – who threatens the people and evokes fears in them, does not want them to ever realize that this is only impowering him and weakening them; he would instead have them believe that they are gaining safety – through fear.
Also, TheMan – who advertises his useless products to consumers, wants non-other then the people to feel as though they make themselves ritch, as they make themselves more poor – with un-needed luxuries.
Would the tempter wish for you to know that your temptation is his only source of power, and your reason for weakness? Nay.
I don’t believe in rulers or rules, though I know that they exist.
Power has its charm, but the only thing stopping the leaders from harming the people/system – is the ability of the people/system to harm the leader.
What kind of consent?
So I guess that the only evil, and the only good, lies in the application, and not the label?
But at least there is a constitution; I would have to say that democracy is different. The leaders to have to answer to the people for what they do more then if they were some sort of true despot.
Dear FutureMan, thanks for being positive.
If something can happen, it eventually will.
Maybe I said wrong, but if altrusim did exist in government, I would blame the people and not the leaders for this change.
I’m not convinced, I must say. I’ll maintain that you are two different people…
I’m not a mod…
Oops?
Maybe I misapplied “two-faced”. Sorry.
Dan~
There is no ‘nature’ of the state, but the motive is ‘superior living’, the affirmation of superior life for it’s own sake…
As to others ‘liking’ you more - no, I doubt that anyone likes you more than you like yourself. Control - the point is that a person can be forced at gunpoint to do something that they would never be able to do of their own volition. That’s the ugly, uncomfortable truth that we don’t like to admit, that subjection to force can be the making of a person or people.
They are gaining safety, of a kind. Besides, the point is that you can get people to do things a lot more quickly by whipping them briefly and then threatening to do it again than you can be persuading them, unless you are truly a master rhetorician. I’m applying for the job of master rhetorician to various philosophical and linguistic societies, using my posts here as proof of my abilities. This isn’t true, of course, but I’d like you to consider whether my argument would be valid if it were true…
One man’s unneeded luxuries are another man’s freedom of choice. The only freedom that means a thing is the freedom to strive to become more powerful. This manifests in various forms, sure, but plain, ugly violence (have you ever seen the videos of people being beheaded) is the most powerful of these forms. I must admit that from a global perspective the Islamists are ‘winning’ the propaganda war inasmuch as their commitment to their beliefs (no matter how insane) is clear, whereas the western verbiage about ‘liberating’ Kabul (fucking BBC…) just seems hypocritical.
As long as you are tempted it really doesn’t matter. I can think when gaving at an attractively shaped bottom that I’m subject to all sorts of expectations and stereotypes that will in some regards form my response(s) but I still look and I still have the reaction.
Seems like an odd belief then, if you don’t mind me saying so…
Like I say to my comrades, the chances are that power will always be held by a small number of people, so either we take it upon ourselves to take as much power as possible or we only have ourselves to blame. Either you rule or you are ruled, indecision is giving oneself to the decision of the Other (Derrida). Deconstruction is a revolutionary philosophy…
The leaders do harm the people, in some regards. I dunno where the notion of taxation comes from (the Greeks had it, didn’t they?), possibly Egypt (easy to blame, aren’t they?), but it’s never been a very popular idea…
It varies - apathy is the best kind, because then you don’t really have to worry about (if you are among the ruling classes). Fascism tends to favour indoctrination and dominion over communications. The threat that someone might be listening (even if in all likelihood they are not) is often enough.
In politics there are only means, not ends. One can place any metaphysical ‘label’ on one’s actions (and that’s where the master rhetoricians come in) but essentially there is only action…
No, the elected leaders have to answer to the people for what they do more than if they were despots. There are so many unelected leaders that it makes representative democracy a farce. Democracy is a device for splitting politics and government…
I’m giving you some good stuff here, not pulling punches, I hope you appreciate it…
this is a classic example of one your unintelligble statements.
the threat of violence, aka fear, is propaganda 101.
Holding a knife to your throat isn’t propaganda…
Since you were wrong on every point regarding semiotics I don’t suppose that you’ll be any more correct here…
i’d say holding a knife to someone’s throat is tad more than a threat.
but, please do keep supposing about things…
Okay, if you want a cleaner example, pointing a gun at someone. There’s no violence in doing such (whereas I suppose that you could argue that there’s violence in actually holding a knife to someone’s throat) but there’s a distinct difference between that and ‘big brother is watching you’ posters…
i still disagree.
reminding someone that you have a gun, just having a gun on your hip, or threating to use it [only verbal]…
but the act of drawing a gun in itself is an act of violent agression.
but just the suggestion of the gun, or the incessant desire to march around with it displayed on your hip or shoulder…
you use the term “propaganda” in a manner wherein i actually understand yout to mean “by force” or “use of power.”
fascism is that active application of the threat of propaganda, it necessarily goes beyond the threat, imho. so, i see totalitariansim as being more about the threat - and fascism about the naked use and application of power and the theat tp completely fulfill the deisre of power with its ends via application.
thus, the faces of power.
I don’t see the difference between the gun that is carried by the police officer and the gun aimed at a person (in the political sense)…
Propaganda is a means of forcing people, just not as effective (or ‘primary’) as violence.
Perhaps, but Fascism and totalitarianism are part and parcel of the same thing, no?
i’d rather be hit by a grain of sand than a rock, but i do suppose they are part and partial of the same thing, no?
Sure, but would you rather throw a grain of sand or a rock if you were trying to disable someone?
that would assume i am not trying or willing to coerce.
that you think “disabling” your opponent is a part of “political force” is illogical imho.
whatever, it is apparent to me you have complained to a mod about me once again, and i will no longer have any discourse with you in the short term.
it’s too bad, as your anger is most delicious to me.