Idiot of the Month

[Comrade Corinna]

This person calls himself a Monarchist. He advocates rule by a monarch, as in an actual king and queen, in todays society.

In response to me telling him that democracy would be better than a monarchy or aristocracy:

While I can appreciate your point of view, it is, nonetheless an ignorant one. Inherited power is no different than elected power. It can be corrupted. In fact, I think if you were to read a bit, you'd find out that our founders were very much aware of the pitfalls of democracy and it's inherent tyrrany, and thought they had crafted a government to protect us from it

Other idiotic things he has said


There are six forms of government. On the good side, we have Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Republic, on the bad side, we have Tyranny, Oligarchy and Democracy.

Communism is not a government, it is an ideology. Communism, however would most likely institute an Oligarchic, or Democratic governmental system, in practice, at least. In theory it creates a state which is partly Aristocratic and Republican, with Anarchist leanings.

But, Communism is not a moral form of government, not because it seeks to redistribute wealth 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need', nor, because it is Atheistic. It is a bad form of government because it relies on the inherent belief in the goodness of man, which is a fallacy. Man, as a species is very, very bad. Greed, lust, and envy will always be at the forefront of the vices men cultivate as virtue, making Communism a pipe dream in all but the smallest of societies.



I am far right, but, I suspect that I am the only one here occupying an honest position on the right. Those claiming to be rightist (i.e. aligned with the Republican Party) are leftists themselves. The only thing that makes them right of anything is that their opponents are to the left of them.

[which doctor]

Can you name names or is that taboo?

[JazzRemington]

Hmmm...I wonder who he wants to be the monarch...

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:23 AM
Hmmm...I wonder who he wants to be the monarch...

Himself most likely.

He sounds more like a fascist than a Monarchist to me.

[Comrade Corinna]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 25 2006, 03:42 AM
Can you name names or is that taboo?
He just called himself "The Monarchist"

I probably wouldnt use his real name, only because thats something HE would do. But I gave a fake name so he cant do anything HAHA!

Fascists are stupid. (wow understatement of the year)
Like, I can GET capitalists, I can see why they think communism wont work, and how they want to get rich. Even though its not right, I understand where they are coming from. But fascists? With fascism, EVERYONE gets screwed over, some way or another.

[James]

Bagehot made some similar points on monarchy (it can be a great form of rule if the ruller is a good ruller, but it could also be the worse kind of rule if the ruller is that way inclined).

I think the notion that democracy is an inherintly "good" form of government is upon to challenge. Although i think, as with monarchy, it all depends on the restraints/form.

[Publius]

I too would like to question your assertions.

I think you're misrepresenting him, if he's a 'monarchist' in the sense of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, author Democracy: The God that Failed.

Read this essay, to get a better idea of what HHH (Awesome alliteration): http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

Saying the democracy is inherently better or that monarchy is inherently worse is just false.

Not that I advocate monarchy. I dislike force entirely. No matter who wields it, it's bad.

[Kalki Avatar]

While I don't believe in a monarchy, I CERTAINLY don't believe in democracy. Democracy is the reason why George Bush was elected to not one shitty term but TWO.

The people cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions.

[loveme4whoiam]

While I don't believe in a monarchy, I CERTAINLY don't believe in democracy. Democracy is the reason why George Bush was elected to not one shitty term but TWO.

The people cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions.

So... what would work? If people cannot be trusted to make decisions, then how would we ever get anything done on a basic level, let alone at society-level. It may be that my understanding of anarchism is deficent (it is), but people are going to be requrired to make decisions regardless of what form of government (or lack thereof) there is.

I see Communism as the ultimate form of democracy, which is why I support it. This may be wrong theoretically speaking, I'm just stating my own view. To site a single incident which is, fair enough, a pretty big fuck-up, seems a bit ignorant of the entire process. Sure, democracy can be corrupted, but then so can any other form of government.

I'm not entirely sure that I understand that guy's arguments. If he's saying that monarchy is the only sane type of government because all the others can be corrupted, then surely he should realise that monarchy is equally (at the very least) open to corruption, and so should become an anarchist.

[James]

I would personally appreciate a little extra information regarding what this chap said.



Inherited power is no different than elected power. It can be corrupted.

A very fair comment.


In fact, I think if you were to read a bit, you'd find out that our founders were very much aware of the pitfalls of democracy and it's inherent tyrrany, and thought they had crafted a government to protect us from it

Again, a very fair comment (americans eh?). Such an opinion is hardly a minority either. Indeed it would sum up liberalism in general.

Also, i think it would help to bare in mind that democracy is simply rule by "the people" (which can mean anything really).

[Comrade Hector]

I think Emperor Sam and Columbia should jello wrestle of the title of "Idiot of The Month". :D :lol:

[Technocrates]

I happen to believe that the reason there are so many facist and monarchist movements and so few monarchists these days is because they generally are only to make THEMSELVES leader. If it were somebody else they would whine and cry.

[Abood]

Well, atleast that person knows what communism is. not like most people i know, who think Communism is totalitarian.
And well, i bet the only reason hes a monarchist is because he wants to be the monarch.
Monarchy is stupid. Stop for a second and think...
in a monarchy, whether the leader is bad or good, u follow his orders and have no say. but in a democracy, u get to vote the leader, so u would know if hes good or bad, but most people appear to be good, and then, when theyre voted in, they prove otherwise..
then comes communism, where there are no leaders.. so theres no one to give orders..
which is the best for everyone.

[Publius]

Playing advocatus diaboli here.


Well, atleast that person knows what communism is. not like most people i know, who think Communism is totalitarian.
And well, i bet the only reason hes a monarchist is because he wants to be the monarch.
Monarchy is stupid. Stop for a second and think...
in a monarchy, whether the leader is bad or good, u follow his orders and have no say.

Why should you necessarily have a say? What makes you so qualified?

Why should you get to vote on economic matters, when I'm a far better economist than you?

How is that fair?



but in a democracy, u get to vote the leader, so u would know if hes good or bad, but most people appear to be good, and then, when theyre voted in, they prove otherwise..

Which obviously explains why Bush got re-elected, right?

Democracy is only as good as the dipshits that comprise it.

See what that gets you?



then comes communism, where there are no leaders.. so theres no one to give orders..
which is the best for everyone.

:lol:

"I think we should start up a hospital to help the sick"

"FUck that, you can't tell me what to do!"

Sign me up for that.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:42 PM
Playing advocatus diaboli here.


Well, atleast that person knows what communism is. not like most people i know, who think Communism is totalitarian.
And well, i bet the only reason hes a monarchist is because he wants to be the monarch.
Monarchy is stupid. Stop for a second and think...
in a monarchy, whether the leader is bad or good, u follow his orders and have no say.

Why should you necessarily have a say? What makes you so qualified?
What makes a non-elected leader that simply inherited his power more qualified than me?


Why should you get to vote on economic matters, when I'm a far better economist than you?

Because it concerns me as well.


How is that fair?
How is it not?



Which obviously explains why Bush got re-elected, right?

Democracy is only as good as the dipshits that comprise it.

See what that gets you?

Which is why we are against leadership, so I don't really see your point?


"I think we should start up a hospital to help the sick"

"Fuck that, you can't tell me what to do!"

Later: "Hey, I'm feeling sick, where's that hospital?"

"You only thought of yourself, bear teh consequences."

Selfish people only punish themselves in communism


Comrade RedFaction :hammer:

[James]

unrelated i suppose: but that jesus site is really pants. why do you want to be associated with it?

[Publius]

What makes a non-elected leader that simply inherited his power more qualified than me?

Nothing, inherently.



Because it concerns me as well.

So? You probably have on conception of the actual economy, like most people, and would just vote for more perks for you and your ilk, to the detriment of society as a whole.



Which is why we are against leadership, so I don't really see your point?


So these same dumbfounded dipshits that elected Bush would turn around and become brilliant little statesmen under communism?

Realize something: They voted for Bush because they LIKED HIS POLICIES. They would simply vote for them and instate them in a 'communist society' or more likely, never allow society to be communist at all.



Later: "Hey, I'm feeling sick, where's that hospital?"

"You only thought of yourself, bear teh consequences."

Selfish people only punish themselves in communism


Exactly.

And then the entire town dies because none wanted to build a hospital.

What incentive is there? None. YOu may as well let someone else do it. And what incentive is there for someone else to do it? None. SO they'll just wait for you to do it.

All very game-theoretical, isn't it?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Lol, maybe not wanting the entire town to die would be an incentive for building a hospital?

[KC]

Lol, maybe not wanting the entire town to die would be an incentive for building a hospital?

Don't try. Publius believes that greed is natural.

Oh by the way Publius, I have The Blank Slate sitting on my shelf - I bought it a few weeks ago - and I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Publius]

Lol, maybe not wanting the entire town to die would be an incentive for building a hospital?

I don't see you building any hospitals.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:37 PM




Don't try. Publius believes that greed is natural.

Oh by the way Publius, I have The Blank Slate sitting on my shelf - I bought it a few weeks ago - and I'm looking forward to reading it.

It is indeed fantastic.

Just don't say anything about it too loudly, or Redstar will arrive and harrangue us about 'sociobiology being racist'.