Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[coloradoatheist]

What do you propose instead?

If it isn't democracy it's some minority enforcing dictates.

Democracy is the answer at the government level. But move democracy to the lower levels. The national govt should do the least amount of work, followed by the state having more power and then local level more. but it needs minority protections.

 

[untermensche]

Democracy needs to move into the workplace.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are fine with the elephant crushing your chest but fear the ant crawling on the ground.

You can either have democracy in some form or dictatorship in some form.

You prefer dictatorship.

I have not told you my preference. My preference is no dictators, neither the majority nor the minority nor you.

What do you propose instead?

I propose that you answer the question I put forward to you. How do you plan to deal with it when the majority tries to violate the rights of the minority?

If it isn't democracy it's some minority enforcing dictates.

MY goal, since you seem obsessed with telling me what it is, is nobody enforcing dictates, neither the minority nor the majority.

Democracy needs to move into the workplace.

How do you plan to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority, be it inside or outside the workplace or wherever?

 

[untermensche]

There is democracy or dictatorship in some form.

There is nothing else.

And the history of democracies is that rights expand.

It is under some form of dictatorship where they contract.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There is democracy or dictatorship in some form.

There is nothing else.

There's even the dictatorship of the minority, unless you pretend it can't happen.

And the history of democracies is that rights expand.

It is under some form of dictatorship where they contract.

So when Australia got rid of firearms, that was democratic dictatorship.

 

[untermensche]

Getting rid of firearms is saying the right to life is greater than the right to own a firearm.

That is called a mature judgement.

Something that is good.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Getting rid of firearms is saying the right to life is greater than the right to own a firearm.

That is called a mature judgement.

Something that is good.

It doesn't count as diminishing rights if you don't like the right being diminished. You do want to be a dictator.

 

[untermensche]

Getting rid of firearms is saying the right to life is greater than the right to own a firearm.

That is called a mature judgement.

Something that is good.

It doesn't count as diminishing rights if you don't like the right being diminished. You do want to be a dictator.

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Getting rid of firearms is saying the right to life is greater than the right to own a firearm.

That is called a mature judgement.

Something that is good.

It doesn't count as diminishing rights if you don't like the right being diminished. You do want to be a dictator.

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

Except it's a conflict of right. People have a right to have toys and they have a right to self-defense.

 

[untermensche]

There is no inherent right to own dangerous toys.

There is the right of society to protect itself from the danger of people and their toys.

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is no inherent right to own dangerous toys.

There is the right of society to protect itself from the danger of people and their toys.

If we are going to help people from death, then banning fast foot would be much better on reducing people dying. Your doctor is also thousands of times more like to kill you too. In terms of overall deaths, mass killings are very rare.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Getting rid of firearms is saying the right to life is greater than the right to own a firearm.

That is called a mature judgement.

Something that is good.

It doesn't count as diminishing rights if you don't like the right being diminished. You do want to be a dictator.

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

The right to own a firearm is not synonymous with the "right" to kill someone.

Now will you tell us what you would do to prevent the majority from voting to remove rights from the minority?

 

[bilby]

There is no inherent right to own dangerous toys.

There is the right of society to protect itself from the danger of people and their toys.

If we are going to help people from death, then banning fast foot would be much better on reducing people dying. Your doctor is also thousands of times more like to kill you too. In terms of overall deaths, mass killings are very rare.

I don't think Usain Bolt is particularly dangerous.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Muslims sue Michigan town that refused permission for a mosque

I'd love to see how Untermensche describes this as not Democracy. Because it was the democratically elected city officials who voted instead of the town as a whole?

Georgia city votes to ban mosque but allow churches

Here's another one.

 

[arkirk]

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

Except it's a conflict of right. People have a right to have toys and they have a right to self-defense.

If there is a law against murder, then you don't have the right to use your gun on someone else. Your right is not to kill. This bullshit about guns and their historic and customary importance is just that...bullshit. You should not be allowed to pack heat with the intention of using on others. When you got that idea in the first place was the movies. Maybe you need to grow up. Guns are not toys. You should not need one in the course of a good life. Live by the ------, die by the----. It has been a problem all through history, the obsession with the right to kill your enemies. We have not progressed and will not progress till we stop this stupid shit.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

Except it's a conflict of right. People have a right to have toys and they have a right to self-defense.

If there is a law against murder, then you don't have the right to use your gun on someone else.

Which is my position as well. The right to own a gun and the "right" to kill are two very different things. I have only encountered one person on this forum who stated that he had any sort of right to kill people in any way other than self defense.

The false choice offered us by untermensche is simply a way to avoid answering the question. He doesn't value the right of self-defense, so therefore nobody values it and no rights are being violated when it is taken away.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Muslims sue Michigan town that refused permission for a mosque

I'd love to see how Untermensche describes this as not Democracy. Because it was the democratically elected city officials who voted instead of the town as a whole?

Georgia city votes to ban mosque but allow churches

Here's another one.

I'd love to hear how coloradoatheist defends his idea that small towns do democracy better than bigger more inclusive entities.

 

[untermensche]

There is no inherent right to own dangerous toys.

There is the right of society to protect itself from the danger of people and their toys.

If we are going to help people from death, then banning fast foot would be much better on reducing people dying. Your doctor is also thousands of times more like to kill you too. In terms of overall deaths, mass killings are very rare.

We are trying to prevent people from killing other people.

By moving a finger.

 

[untermensche]

Are you a child?

Which right should have priority?

The right to life or the right to own dangerous toys?

The right to own a firearm is not synonymous with the "right" to kill someone.

No it just gives any moron the power to kill somebody. By moving their finger.

Now will you tell us what you would do to prevent the majority from voting to remove rights from the minority?

In what democracy are you talking about?

The US is an oligarchy with a few democratic trappings.

 

[untermensche]

Muslims sue Michigan town that refused permission for a mosque

I'd love to see how Untermensche describes this as not Democracy. Because it was the democratically elected city officials who voted instead of the town as a whole?

Georgia city votes to ban mosque but allow churches

Here's another one.

I said you need a Bill of Rights.

These things clearly violate the First Amendment.

What it takes are Courts that respect religious rights.

Because backward primitive religious fundamentalists that live in the US do not.

What's best is to not have a fundamentalist nation like the US.

What is best is to educate people.