Absolute Democracy

[shamrok16]

Ive been working on a new form of government i call Absolute Democracy. Ive been working on it awhile. It would be nice to get some feedback.

Absolute Democracy Would be a simple and productive way of running a country. Current Democracy with senate and congress and seperate political parties with opposing views and ideologies keep things from getting done. A country moves to slow under full democracy at a time period in history where the world is changing at so fast a rate. A powerful country needs 1 Ruler with absolute power in order to get things done.

The Ruler, or Titus (named after Titus Larcius, the roman dictator in 501 BC), would act in the same manner that the current executive branch of government does, such as making war, peace, tax policies, Amnesty and pardons, the power to place people on house arrest, or detain them for a certain amount of time. He can also install his on governors if he chooses too. and how government money should be spent. The Titus would also appoint anyone he chooses for any supreme court, diplomatic, or other state official positions. The difference between the current system and the new system of Absolute Democracy would be that the Titus would have much more power.

The Titus would have no term limit. However, Since history speaks for itself that Absolute power corrupts absolutely, there will be a 12 man council that has a small veto power over the Titus. The Titus will still practically hold absolute rule, even though the council will be a counter weight to keep a dangerous or destructive Titus from coming into power.
Positions the Titus can appoint would include
Supreme judge- This judge would act in the same way the supreme court does
Foreign diplomats
Director of the political campaigns department- would act as leader of the political campaign department, which would monitor elections at state and local levels, and see the distribution of money to campaign candidates.
Director of the CIA
Director of the FBI
Director of the treasury department
Director of the department of interior
Attorney general
Director of the department of agriculture
Director of the department of commerce
Head of defense- A secretary of defense
Director of the department of common welfare- The department of housing and urban development and the department of health and human services would merge to fall under this department.
Director of the Department of education
Director of department of veteran affairs
Director of the department of modern justice- This department would follow up on any investigative journalism type reports. It would also take surveys on what people think of the titus and what their greatest political concern is. The director would report to the titus on such problems and brief the titus on what the top priority of the people is on a weekly basis. It would also take surveys to determine what people think the titus is doing wrong.

The first 7 amendments of the Bill of rights would be the same, however, The first amendment does not apply to a person if the titus wishes. In order for the first amendment to become irrevelent to a person, then it must be ordered from the titus. If the Titus wants to detain someone for what they say, then he can. However, a person can only be detained for a certain amount of time. All amendments after the 7th would be obsolete.
FIRST AMENDMENT– Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
SECOND AMENDMENT – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, wether it be gun or rifle, shall not be infringed.
THIRD AMENDMENT – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
FOURTH AMENDMENT – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
FIFTH AMENDMENT – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
SIXTH AMENDMENT– Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
SEVENTH AMENDMENT – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
EIGHTH AMENDMENT– Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
NINTH AMENDMENT- If the Titus wishes to revoke a persons First, sixth, and / or seventh rights, then he can with the support of at least 4 Tribunes. The Titus can not revoke the rights of a Tribune.
TENTH AMENDMENT- the Titus has the right to shut down any business, private industry, and / or organization with the support of at least 4 tribunes.

If 9 out of 12 of the council members, or tribunes, vote against a policy brought by the Titus, then the policy can not be passed. Each Tribune is elected by region. The country would be divided into 6 regions. Each region has 2 Tribunes. The Tribunes are elected every 8 years by the people. state and city officials are still elected by the people, however a Titus is allowed to install his own governors if 8 out of 12 of the Tribunes agree. The Titus can also place house arrests and ban organizations or businesses if at least 8 of the Tribunes agree with it. The titus must choose one of the Tribunes to act as deputy leader. A new deputy leader is chosen every year. He will lead the council and act as a temporary titus if the Original titus dies suddenly or is so sick that he is incapable of ruling.

The council also has the power to call for the removal of the titus from power. If the council thinks the titus should be removed from power, then they can have a vote in secret. The deputy leader MUST be present for the vote. If at least 10 tribunes agree including the deputy leader, then a national vote would be held. If at least 85% of the vote is for the removal, then he would be removed from power and the council would choose one of the 12 members to be the next titus. To be eligable for leadership, they must have at least one full term of experience, be 35 years old, been born in the US, Have served as deputy leader at least 5 times, and have the support of at least 3 council members who are not in his region.

Political parties would be banned, and there would be no legislature under Absolute Democracy. However, the titus will appoint a director who would be in control of a new department that would control campaigns throughout the country. This new department would give out a certain sum of money to local and state level politicians to pay for campaigns. The money must be enough to finance a campaign. Candidates would be allowed to use there money as well, but there would also be a certain limit as to how much money could be spent on a campaign. Political candidates must follow certain guidelines on how to run a campaign. These guidelines, or rules of conduct, would be set by the department to monitor elections, political smear tactics, and to make sure a canditate does not question the rule of the Titus in to dangerous of a way.

The 6 regions that make up the country would be similar to the below, although not exact. The regions would be designed in such a way as to not give one part of the country to much power. States where the majority of people oppose the system of Absolute Democracy would be formed into a single region, where as a part of the country where many of the states support the new system would be split up, in such a way that most of the tribunes on the council would be pro-Absolute rule. Below is roughly how each region would go by:

PACIFIC REGION- California, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada

NORTH WEST REGION- Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas

SOUTHERN REGION- Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, mississippi

MID REGION- Minnesota, wisconsin, Illinois, indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa

EASTERN REGION- West virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida

NEW ENGLAND REGION- Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware

[redstar2000]

A powerful country needs 1 Ruler with absolute power in order to get things done.

No...we don't want that!

Thread moved to the Learning forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Orthodox Marxist]

1 ruler=dictatorship =hitler that would not serve the people need I say more

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:00 PM
The Ruler, or Titus (named after Titus Larcius, the roman dictator in 501 BC), would act in the same manner that the current executive branch of government does, such as making war...
The power to declare war rests within the legislative branch. Article I, Section 8.

[OkaCrisis]

The Ruler, or Titus (named after Titus Larcius, the roman dictator in 501 BC), would act in the same manner that the current executive branch of government does, such as making war, peace, tax policies, Amnesty and pardons, the power to place people on house arrest, or detain them for a certain amount of time. He can also install his on governors if he chooses too. and how government money should be spent. The Titus would also appoint anyone he chooses for any supreme court, diplomatic, or other state official positions. The difference between the current system and the new system of Absolute Democracy would be that the Titus would have much more power.

Like some kind of fascist dictator?


The Titus would have no term limit.

So we can never get rid of him... But


there will be a 12 man council that has a small veto power over the Titus.

So that should quell our fears. These people won't be a) in cahoots with "Titus" or b) killed if they oppose him/her.


Director of the department of modern justice- This department would follow up on any investigative journalism type reports. It would also take surveys on what people think of the titus and what their greatest political concern is.

... To make sure they we'rent witing about anything that didn't agree with the "Party" Image?

And not only that, but would also feed you loads of propaganda about whatever media-"inspired" hysteria was the most profitable to them at the time? Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the people don't have "greatest political concerns". They have SUVs and MTV. And they want more of them. Cheap.

Plus, that sounds a lot like your First Ammendment being violated:

FIRST AMENDMENT– Freedom of speech, press, religion, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government.

But!!!


however, The first amendment does not apply to a person if the titus wishes. In order for the first amendment to become irrevelent to a person, then it must be ordered from the titus. If the Titus wants to detain someone for what they say, then he can

Then what's the point of even having Ammendments?!


FOURTH AMENDMENT – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Who defines what's "reasonable"?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

But guns are legal... So they aren't looking for those. Maybe they want your drugs and your porn?


TENTH AMENDMENT- the Titus has the right to shut down any business, private industry, and / or organization with the support of at least 4 tribunes.

So he can prevent the formation of any rival groups, with the help of a few of his fundamentalist cronies...


To be eligable for leadership, they must have at least one full term of experience, be 35 years old, been born in the US
...

Political parties would be banned
...

titus will appoint a director who would be in control of a new department that would control campaigns throughout the country.

Do you hear yourself!? :blink: This is a communist message board!

That's not Communism. And it is NOT Democracy. It's Fascism. Plain and simple.

[Ol' Dirty]

Absolute Democracy Would be a simple and productive way of running a country.

A tad too simple... way too Authoritarian.


Current Democracy with senate and congress and seperate political parties with opposing views and ideologies keep things from getting done.

Yes...


A country moves to slow under full democracy at a time period in history where the world is changing at so fast a rate.

Um... okay...


A powerful country needs 1 Ruler with absolute power in order to get things done.

WHAT? Are you proposing an American dicatorship? What in the name of Marx do we need that for? Dictators: Hitler! Mousolini! Stalin! Why in fictional hell were you thinking?


The Ruler, or Titus (named after Titus Larcius, the roman dictator in 501 BC), would act in the same manner that the current executive branch of government does, such as making war, peace, tax policies, Amnesty and pardons, the power to place people on house arrest, or detain them for a certain amount of time.

Why go back more than 2500 years? Dictorships are extremist, authoritarian, Babalonian things, forged by classists.


He can also install his on governors if he chooses too. and how government money should be spent.

What if he's incompetant? Why not she?


The Titus would also appoint anyone he chooses for any supreme court, diplomatic, or other state official positions.

Well, that's Authoritarian. Are you a rightist?


The difference between the current system and the new system of Absolute Democracy would be that the Titus would have much more power.

Well, duh, dude.


The Titus would have no term limit.

Dictatorship.


However, Since history speaks for itself that Absolute power corrupts absolutely, there will be a 12 man council that has a small veto power over the Titus.

Oligarchic dictatorship. What if the "council" is inept as well?


The Titus will still practically hold absolute rule, even though the council will be a counter weight to keep a dangerous or destructive Titus from coming into power.

I'd kill the "Titus", right out. I tend to kill tyrants. :D There's no such thing as a "benevolent dictator", only ones that don't put your head on a pike.

I had to cut off a lot of fat. This is an overall a bad idea. It wouldn't work.

Peace.

[La Comédie Noire]

Okay by absolute Democracy you meant direct democracy and by what you wrote you mean Facism. That is just messed up, you had some good points but others where just weird, for lack of a more polite word.

[VonClausewitz]

I liked it. Some good ideas floating around in there.


red marxist army

1 ruler=dictatorship =hitler that would not serve the people need I say more

Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course. ;)

redstar2000


A powerful country needs 1 Ruler with absolute power in order to get things done.

No...we don't want that!

We know that you don't, but what would happen if 'the people' wanted this ?

[RebelOutcast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:20 PM
Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course.
So you think that his discrimination and eventual mass slaughter of the "Untermenschen" was a "good thing" for the german people?

[commiecrusader]

Did someone let the restricted members have some cows in this forum???

Almost anytime they come round to post, I just get this horrible stench of bullshit.

That idea sounds not much better than fascism or a dictatorship. But lets just throw this little spanner in the works to show you people what it feels like for us to have this idea of one man iwith ultimate power with stupid fascist ideas.

What if the Titus was a communist and abolished your whole stupid system?...

[commiecrusader]

Furthermore, how do you propose that one man can perform all of those jobs adequately? He can't judge every single criminal case can he.

[Ol' Dirty]

I liked it. Some good ideas floating around in there.


Fool.


Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course. ;)

You'd beter not be an anti-semite. In that case, I'll be forced to report you; get you out of here for good. If you're going to spread the ultimate Authoritarian, Hitlers, dreams, go spread it with the Nazi Party of America. Sounds good for you. Here's a link:

http://www.americannaziparty.com/ (Caution to other, more compasionate, users: do not go here, it's for bigoted assholes. Of course, you all knew that.)

You, Vonhatwitz, would love it. :angry:.


We know that you don't, but what would happen if 'the people' wanted this ?

If you were in my community, you and the sham (shamrok16, or whatever) would be banished to the wastelands. Cut off the fat, enjoy the suculence of the whole. You are the fat!

Peace and brotherhood.

[JC1]

Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course.

Actualy, the german's could not of possibly countinued to offset there falling rate of profit without the war. You would know that if you had even the most crude understanding of economic's. Of course, anyone with a solid understanding of economics is ... probobly a marxist.

If you make any stupid comments like that again ... I will through a brick in youre face.

I lost several relatives becuase of there communism and there Jewish nationality to that regime.

[Publius]

Ive been working on a new form of government i call Absolute Democracy. Ive been working on it awhile. It would be nice to get some feedback.


It's already been done: We call it 'fascism'.

And I'm not just bandying the term about, as most do: this is the exact argument used for fascism, by fascists (I've argued with them before); that the current system is 'too slow' and has 'too much debate'.

Retrograde, regressive bullshit, the lot of it.

[Tormented by Treachery]

How many posts does he have, 3? Is that a record, being restricted after 3?

[Lord Testicles]

Your ideas are idiotic, it has nothing to do with democracy, and you obviously have some kind of obsession with ancient rome. I urge you to get a labotomy.

[VonClausewitz]

RebelOutcast;


(VonClausewitz @ Feb 1 2006, 01:20 PM)
Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course.

So you think that his discrimination and eventual mass slaughter of the "Untermenschen" was a "good thing" for the german people?

Nope, I meant in a purely economic and political sense; the weimar repbublics were a mess.

FluxOne13;



Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course. wink.gif


You'd beter not be an anti-semite. In that case, I'll be forced to report you; get you out of here for good. If you're going to spread the ultimate Authoritarian, Hitlers, dreams, go spread it with the Nazi Party of America. Sounds good for you. Here's a link:

http://www.americannaziparty.com/ (Caution to other, more compasionate, users: do not go here, it's for bigoted assholes. Of course, you all knew that.)

You, Vonhatwitz, would love it

Why is it, everytime someone admits that Hitler and his Nazi party actually did some good before they went on a genocidal rampage, everyone ignores that fact, and gets straight onto the "You said Hitler wasn't satan, you must hate Jews !" bandwagon ?

I wasn't spreading any dreams you moron, I was merely stating historical fact. What the hell is 'VonHatwitz' supposed to mean anyway ? Do you know who Karl Von Clausewitz was ? No, I didn't love it, it's boorish and dull, and full of inbred white-power types.

JC1;


QUOTE
Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course.


Actualy, the german's could not of possibly countinued to offset there falling rate of profit without the war. You would know that if you had even the most crude understanding of economic's. Of course, anyone with a solid understanding of economics is ... probobly a marxist.

If you make any stupid comments like that again ... I will through a brick in youre face.

I lost several relatives becuase of there communism and there Jewish nationality to that regime.

Very true, (an intelligent answer at last), the falling profits of the whole country would have caused an economic slowdown if the war hadn't started when it did, but still, if that is some kind of allusion to "Hitler started the war for capitalism", then you're wrong. It is still prudent to say that Germany needed strong government at that point, otherwise it might never have properly recovered. Just a shame they messed it all up with eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

The best economists are marxists ? You lot like numbers, so prove that.

You then went on to kill your post by threatening me; You can't THROW a brick in my face, this is the internet you idiot. We all lost relatives to that regime, it was a world war, several of my father's family were killed fighting across france with the 'Desert Rats'.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 01:57 PM
Nope, I meant in a purely economic and political sense; the weimar repbublics were a mess.

Sorry, but this is unacceptable. Hitler's economic policy was almost as horrific as his attitudes toward Jews, and the two issues are not detached...im not going into it,

Enjoy your nice shinny new warning point, fucker, look after it properly or I'll give you another one. ;)

[Columbia]

I was excited about this post's title, because it appeared to be about the future of America. But reading it and some of the responses, I think I've tripped into the Twilight Zone.

[KC]

Sorry, but this is unacceptable. Hitler's economic policy was almost as horrific as his attitudes toward Jews, and the two issues are not detached...im not going into it,

I don't think he was talking about the ethics of Hitler's economic policy.

Before the Nazi's came to power, people were burning money because the money was so worthless that it was more efficient to burn it for heat than to spend it on anything. Nazi economic policy took the country out of this depression and completely turned it around.

Of course, this was because the economy was based around the military if I remember correctly; the Nazis' desire for a greater military meant more missiles, planes, ships, guns... This created a lot of jobs.

I could be wrong, though. This was what I was taught in highschool, though, so I'm sure it has some truth in it.

EDIT:
Found a picture of a woman loading a stove with money.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Inflation-1923.jpg


Originally posted by Wikipedia
By 1923, the Republic could no longer afford the reparations payments required by the Versailles treaty, and the government defaulted. In response, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr region, Germany's most productive industrial region at the time, taking control of most mining and manufacturing companies in January of 1923. Strikes were called, and passive resistance was encouraged. These strikes lasted eight months, further damaging the economy and raising expensive imports.

Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The value of the Mark had declined from 4.2 per US dollar to 1 million per dollar by August 1923 and 4.2 million million(trillion) per dollar on November 20. On December 1, a new currency, the Rentenmark, was introduced at the rate of 1 million million(trillion) old marks for 1 new mark. Reparation payments resumed, and the Ruhr was returned to Germany.

So it appears that the Weimar Republic was a mess.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:20 PM
I don't think he was talking about the ethics of Hitler's economic policy.

Who mentioned ethics?

Just to remind you all, Hitler's economic policy included the murdering of Trade unionists, the destruction of Workers rights, the strengthening of corporate rights, the expulsion/extermination and mistreatment of racial groups, rampant sexism, and in later cases, slavery.

I don't care how many fuckign bombs they managed to build.


Before the Nazi's came to power, people were burning money because the money was so worthless

Sounds good to me :D


So it appears that the Weimar Republic was a mess.

So what? all governments are shit.

[KC]

Who mentioned ethics?

Just to remind you all, Hitler's economic policy included the murdering of Trade unionists, the destruction of Workers rights, the strengthening of corporate rights, the expulsion/extermination and mistreatment of racial groups, rampant sexism, and in later cases, slavery.

Just to remind you, Hitler's economic policy turned the country around economically. You just contradicted yourself!

"Who mentioned ethics?" Then you proceed to talk about the unethical means that Hitler's economic policy employed. Nobody here is doubting how immoral or vicious it was.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:06 PM
Just to remind you, Hitler's economic policy turned the country around economically.
So?


"Who mentioned ethics?" Then you proceed to talk about the unethical means that Hitler's economic policy employed. Nobody here is doubting how immoral or vicious it was.

No, just highlighting some parts of economic system your so gallantly defending. Whether or not they are unethical is a matter of opinion.

[KC]

I'm not defending his economic policy at all. All I said was that it was economically very effective and that Von Clausewitz didn't deserve that warning point. But I have since changed my mind on that issue, as you already know.

[VonClausewitz]

Lazar;


I'm not defending his economic policy at all. All I said was that it was economically very effective and that Von Clausewitz didn't deserve that warning point. But I have since changed my mind on that issue, as you already know.

Thankyou on both counts, history does tend to have a way of proving itself eventually. Neither was I 'defending' his economic policies, merely pointing out that they were damned effective. Which issue have you change your mind on by the way ? :blush:

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:57 PM
Neither was I 'defending' his economic policies, merely pointing out that they were damned effective.
Sorry, but you attached an opinion to the original statement.


Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war

There's a big difference between saying "Hitler was the best..." and "Hitler was the most effective..." Maybe we ought to check what 'best' actually means? 1. Being positive or desirable 2. having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.

So basically, your saying that had you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have seen Hitler, and indeed do see Hitler as the most positive desirable thing to happen to germany "For Decades". Shame I had to cut apart and analyse your statement to make it's meaning explicit, even to you, but c'est la vie.

Maybe you need more than a warning point?

[VonClausewitz]

I'm a history student, the fact the after the great war, and the weimar repulics, that the nazis were good for Germany is historical fact, no ammount of politically-correct whining can change that. Then the head of said nazi party started the world war, hence the second part of my original statement;

"untill he started his war"

The war including the major ethnic-cleansing expeditions and operaitons.


So basically, your saying that had you lived in Nazi Germany, you would have seen Hitler, and indeed do see Hitler as the most positive desirable thing to happen to germany "For Decades". Shame I had to cut apart and analyse your statement to make it's meaning explicit, even to you, but c'est la vie.

If I'd just lived through a mess of wannabe city-states tearing appart the nation, and hyperinflation meaning I risked starving to death, then yes, I and you, probably would've welcomed strong government and a job and steady income. You tagged your own meaning onto my statement, nowhere did suggest that I do support Hitler's ideas.

After the world war, the soviets proceeded to mess with Germany again. Untill re-unification, only the western bit was in a better post-war state when compared to Hitler's pre-war germany. That is also fact.


Maybe you need more than a warning point?

Maybe you need to get off your power-trip for a while, and accept that the past happened, and that not everyone is going to paint it in pretty left-wing friendly pictures for you.

[commiecrusader]

The war including the major ethnic-cleansing expeditions and operaitons.
These activities started before the war. What about acts like krystalnacht?


If I'd just lived through a mess of wannabe city-states tearing appart the nation, and hyperinflation meaning I risked starving to death, then yes, I and you, probably would've welcomed strong government and a job and steady income.
No leftist, or indeed rational compassionate human being would everwelcome a fascist regime, however 'strong' they might be or whatever situation they found themselves in. At that point, the WR was crying out for a workers revolution. Why do you think the party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party? It wasn't because they actually were socialist, it was because they wanted to attract the working classes to their cause.


Maybe you need to get off your power-trip for a while, and accept that the past happened, and that not everyone is going to paint it in pretty left-wing friendly pictures for you.
Maybe you should come up wiyh an argument that holds up. Stop trying to gloss your bullshit opinions with a veneer of 'fact'.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:49 PM
I'm a history student,
ooo get you, Im a philosophy/ethics student...


the fact the after the great war, and the weimar repulics, that the nazis were good for Germany is historical fact,

...and allow me to share with you, the first thing you generally get taught in Philosophy/ethics. Good is an irrelevant expression. To say something is good, is as valid as saying blue is better than red. To claim that somethign is good, as intrinsic fact, is nothign short of pure idiocy.


no ammount of politically-correct whining can change that. Then the head of said nazi party started the world war, hence the second part of my original statement;

The big problem being, that the Nazis committed atrocities before the war as well, many of these atrocities being a direct and necessary result of their economic policy, which you support.


"untill he started his war"

The war including the major ethnic-cleansing expeditions and operaitons.

Neither your position on the Holocaust, or the war, were a part of your warning point.


If I'd just lived through a mess of wannabe city-states tearing appart the nation, and hyperinflation meaning I risked starving to death, then yes,

Well, thanks for confirming my reason for giving you a warning point.


I and you, probably would've welcomed strong government and a job and steady income. You tagged your own meaning onto my statement, nowhere did suggest that I do support Hitler's ideas.

Firstly, and this is not just to spite you, I would not have welcomed a strong government, not then, not now, not ever. Secondly, attributing the term "best" automatically ties an opinion to the situation.


After the world war, the soviets proceeded to mess with Germany again. Untill re-unification, only the western bit was in a better post-war state when compared to Hitler's pre-war germany. That is also fact.

Nobody questioned that the economic policy of nazi germany effectively increased the states ability to wage war, and support itself. We are however questioning whether somebody who supports the economic policy, including all the thousands of murders, slavery and the destruction of workers rights, should go 'unpunished'


Maybe you need to get off your power-trip for a while, and accept that the past happened, and that not everyone is going to paint it in pretty left-wing friendly pictures for you.

The past certainly did happen, and as I've said, it was a horrific, brutal, and totalitarian time, i find it marvellously ironic that you, the one who has been glamorising Nazism, accuses me of painting history pretty.

Maybe you should shut up nazi-boy, before I give you another warning point for defending the nazi economic policy.

[VonClausewitz]

commiecrusader;


QUOTE
If I'd just lived through a mess of wannabe city-states tearing appart the nation, and hyperinflation meaning I risked starving to death, then yes, I and you, probably would've welcomed strong government and a job and steady income.

No leftist, or indeed rational compassionate human being would everwelcome a fascist regime, however 'strong' they might be or whatever situation they found themselves in. At that point, the WR was crying out for a workers revolution. Why do you think the party was called the National Socialist German Workers Party? It wasn't because they actually were socialist, it was because they wanted to attract the working classes to their cause.


Try putting yourself in their situation. The internet wasn't available then, people knew very little, if they saw a way to improve life, they would support it. Why do you think the national socialists gained such support ? Some people wanted a revolution, the majority had probably heard rumours of the mass slaughter in the east. (Yes, the Russian civil war happened).

Additives free;



After the world war, the soviets proceeded to mess with Germany again. Untill re-unification, only the western bit was in a better post-war state when compared to Hitler's pre-war germany. That is also fact.


Nobody questioned that the economic policy of nazi germany effectively increased the states ability to wage war, and support itself. We are however questioning whether somebody who supports the economic policy, including all the thousands of murders, slavery and the destruction of workers rights, should go 'unpunished'


Where have I supported anything. I've just stated what happened. Don't misconstrue what I've said to suit your own agenda.


QUOTE
Maybe you need to get off your power-trip for a while, and accept that the past happened, and that not everyone is going to paint it in pretty left-wing friendly pictures for you.


The past certainly did happen, and as I've said, it was a horrific, brutal, and totalitarian time, i find it marvellously ironic that you, the one who has been glamorising Nazism, accuses me of painting history pretty.

Maybe you should shut up nazi-boy, before I give you another warning point for defending the nazi economic policy.

Oh dear me, I'm now glamourising nazism. I'm not a nazi you moron, come down out of your ivory tower eh ? It's called HISTORY. It happened, just because I'm capable of looking at it objectively doesn't mean I'm one of them. God forbid someone has their own opinions and/or thoughts about world history, conversations like this is part of the reason why I hate mindless sloganeers, people who can't see past their own ideology.

[themaskedavenger]

isnt absolute power being given to a ruler something that we are trying to steer away from

[Publius]

Maybe you should shut up nazi-boy, before I give you another warning point for defending the nazi economic policy.


How intransigent.

I hope you realize how much of an ass you come off as.

You don't automatically win a debate just by calling the other person a Nazi or by saying he supports Nazism simply because he points out the obvious fact that the Nazi economy was better than the Weimar Republic's economy.

No where in the debate have you actually proven any of his assertions wrong, or established the fact that we supported specifically Nazi policies.

His saying that Hitler's economic policy (Which was broadly Keynesian) was not better than the Weimar Republic's economy is utter inanity.

I suppose 'low inflation', 'low unemployment' and 'GDP Growth' were all 'Nazi economic policies' and we 'anti-Fascists' should shoot for rampant inflation, high unemployment and GDP loss?

Saying "the Nazies were right for controlling inflation" doesn't make you a Nazi just as saying "The Nazis were right for believing in gravity" doesn't make you Nazi.

I thought logic was the chief tool of philosophy? Perhaps you missed that class.

Specifically, you're guilty of the logical fallcy 'Guild by Accociation'.


Just to remind you all, Hitler's economic policy included the murdering of Trade unionists, the destruction of Workers rights, the strengthening of corporate rights, the expulsion/extermination and mistreatment of racial groups, rampant sexism, and in later cases, slavery.

Yeah?

And any number of sordid things have happend in every single modern country; are they not 'better' economically speaking, than they used to be?

Is America not better economically than it was in the 1600's, even though slavery was used?

Saying 'the American economy is good now compared to how it was in the 1600's' is not a statement of support for slavery, or the murder of trade unionists, or anything of the sort.

It's merely a fact.

To sum it all up: at worst, he made a mistatement. It's clear to anyone reading the post that he isn't a supporter of Hitler, merely that he preffered parts of its economic policy to those of Weimar Republic.

So, while you're handing out warning points, be sure to hand them out to EVERYONE who prefers 'Nazi economic policies' like 'low inflation' and 'low unemployment' to obstensibly 'anti-fascist policies' of hyperinflation and poverty.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:43 PM
To sum it all up: at worst, he made a mistatement. It's clear to anyone reading the post that he isn't a supporter of Hitler, merely that he preffered parts of its economic policy to those of Weimar Republic.
I thank you for posting this part especially (bolding mine, obviously) because it cleared matters up. He preferred the economic system of the Nazis, eh?

prefer

v 1: like better; value more highly

So he personally, as a matter of opinion, likes the economic system of the Nazi party -- not whether it was effective or not, he prefers it. He prefers the atrocities mentioned by AF, because they were effective, or rather an unfortunate consequence of a preferable system, but something that given the weight of the effectiveness, negligable.

Slavery was effective but in no way do I (nor any of you, I presume) support or prefer it.

To simply say that "well, the fascist regime of Hitler was effective" would be correct. He accomplished many of his goals -- mass genocide included. But to prefer it, ah, that is a matter unto itself.

That all said, I think it nothing more than a series of misstatements, I don't think VonClausewitz is a Nazi supporter, but I do think AF is in the right here.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:18 PM




I thank you for posting this part especially (bolding mine, obviously) because it cleared matters up. He preferred the economic system of the Nazis, eh?

No, I didn't state that; re-read. I said he preffered PARTS of it -- huge difference.

For example, he probably supported their strong stand against inflation but probably didn't support their murdering of unionists.

In light of this, your entire post sort-of falls apart.




So he personally, as a matter of opinion, likes the economic system of the Nazi party -- not whether it was effective or not, he prefers it. He prefers the atrocities mentioned by AF, because they were effective, or rather an unfortunate consequence of a preferable system, but something that given the weight of the effectiveness, negligable.

He preffered parts of it.

He doesn't support those atrocities at all; has he ever stated he did?

This is, again, nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to project views onto him, views that he doesn't hold.

I really hate to speak for someone else, but I found this whole thing to be laughable in its absurdity.



Slavery was effective but in no way do I (nor any of you, I presume) support or prefer it.

The actual effectiveness of slavery is contested.

I'm not so certain it really is that effective.

But you're correct, it is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.



To simply say that "well, the fascist regime of Hitler was effective" would be correct. He accomplished many of his goals -- mass genocide included. But to prefer it, ah, that is a matter unto itself.

But that's not what he said. You are specifically taking the meaning of his post and purporting it to mean something else. THat's intellectually dishonest.




That all said, I think it nothing more than a series of misstatements, I don't think VonClausewitz is a Nazi supporter, but I do think AF is in the right here.

I don't see how you can say that; he hasn't proven an assertion or made a salient point yet.

[Ol' Dirty]

(VonClausewitz @ Feb 1 2006, 01:20 PM)
Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course.


So you think that his discrimination and eventual mass slaughter of the "Untermenschen" was a "good thing" for the german people?


Nope, I meant in a purely economic and political sense; the weimar repbublics were a mess.

Although the Weimar Republic was poorly and hastefuly created, the Communist party was strong in Germany, and in much of Europe. The only reason the Nazi Party "won" the governmental elections was because they were powerfull (powerfully human, in the hateful sense) propagandists who utilized a fascist police state system to achieve its ends.

FluxOne13;



Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course. wink.gif

You'd beter not be an anti-semite. In that case, I'll be forced to report you; get you out of here for good. If you're going to spread the ultimate Authoritarian, Hitlers, dreams, go spread it with the Nazi Party of America. Sounds good for you. Here's a link:

http://www.americannaziparty.com/ (Caution to other, more compasionate, users: do not go here, it's for bigoted assholes. Of course, you all knew that.)

You, Vonhat[e]witz, would love it[/QUOTE]


Why is it, everytime someone admits that Hitler and his Nazi party actually did some good before they went on a genocidal rampage, everyone ignores that fact, and gets straight onto the "You said Hitler wasn't satan, you must hate Jews!" bandwagon?

You reprimand me for a spelling error, VonHatewitz, yet you bring my argument down by merging our quotes? :huh: Well, at least my spelling and grammar mistakes are an exception rather than the norm. You see, my meaning was to imply that you seemed hateful, or at least strangley Unorthodox with your apparent support of Hitler. You have to watch the things you say;people may notice. If you're going to say things supportive of a fascist, people are going to think you are... ummm... DUH, DUH, DUH... a fascist! If you didn't get that, you really do need to pay attention.

I never said that Hitler was Satan, but you don't exactly speak of him lowly. Also, about the economical change, not only do you sound like a Capitalist (which doesn't suprise, restricted member), but a wrong one at that. The Nazi Era was like a temporary drug fix for Germany; it worked for a while, then half of Germany plumeted into Soviet hands, the other half becoming a Capitalist-backed war machine. Economically, yes, it was good... for a while... socially and politicaly, it had a huge global impact, helping ignite the Cold War. And, in case you don't know Mathematics or History, one out of three is VERY, VERY, BAD!.


...I was merely stating historical fact.

No you weren't, you were stating historical opinion, as I am... as we all are! There is no "The" history! We are all makers and seers of history, in my view! Ask any two people about the same event, and you'll see, two different "facts". We all need to see history through our own eyes. As a society we need to choose who we are going to believe. So, who are you going to believe? Me, this fool over there... or yourself?


What the hell is 'VonHatwitz' supposed to mean anyway?

Read the begining of my post first. Then, read this: you sound like a fascist, fascists tend to be hateful, thusly, you may be hateful.


Do you know who Karl Von Clausewitz was?

Actually, I do. He was Eighteenth and nineteenth century strategist, tactician and millitary philosopher; almost as influential as Sun Tzu. Just recently lookid it up, don't know much, but at least I know now. It's really pathetic when people can't get a name pun. Are you one of those boring types?


No, I didn't love it, it's boorish and dull, and full of inbred white-power types.

You must've failed third grade reading, or something, but you bunch are as unelaborative as hell! Ugh! Work on your syntax, if you're going to be so high-and-mighty about yourself.


Actualy, the german's could not of possibly countinued to offset there falling rate of profit without the war. You would know that if you had even the most crude understanding of economic's. Of course, anyone with a solid understanding of economics is ... probobly a marxist.

Well spoken.

If you make any stupid comments like that again ... I will through a brick in youre face.

[/QUOTE]I lost several relatives becuase of there communism and there Jewish nationality to that regime. [/QUOTE]

Well, that was positive. Don't say stuff like that again, or you'll find yourself reported. A warning.


Very true, (an intelligent answer at last), the falling profits of the whole country would have caused an economic slowdown if the war hadn't started when it did, but still, if that is some kind of allusion to "Hitler started the war for capitalism", then you're wrong. It is still prudent to say that Germany needed strong government at that point, otherwise it might never have properly recovered. Just a shame they messed it all up with eugenics and ethnic cleansing.

Finally, elaboration! A good start; now, let's work on your arguments. Strong as it was, I wouldn't be here today if the Nazi's had won the war. In fact, a majority of Americans would be dead or imprisoned for colaborating with "racial inferiors", or "being one".


The best economists are marxists ? You lot like numbers, so prove that.

Marx was an economist. His system is based on drastic economic change. Any true Marxist has some experience with economical talk.

Also, my apologies for calling you a Nazi/Fascist. Not well thought out, on my part. Merely trying to say, blacks, Jews, gays, and many others are going to be mad; you're going to get some flak.

Peace, brothers and sisters.

[Forward Union]

Where have I supported anything.

Being a history student, I expect you know all too well the terms "bias" and "neutral". Im also presuming you have some understanding of English. If you were studying a source on Nazi Germany, that made the statement "Hitler was the best..." would you label it as neutral or bias?


I've just stated what happened. Don't misconstrue what I've said to suit your own agenda.

What agenda would that be?. But really, you claimed Hitler "was the best thing to happen" which is a verbal support, I fail to see how I've misconstrued anything. Unless you have not expressed yourself properly, which I doubt, as you have not retracted that statement. I gave you a warning point for claiming Hitler was the best thing to happen for decades...that's really as simply as I can put it.


Oh dear me, I'm now glamourising nazism. I'm not a nazi you moron, come down out of your ivory tower eh ? It's called HISTORY. It happened, just because I'm capable of looking at it objectively doesn't mean I'm one of them.

Of course, your free to make your own conclusions. I've certainly made mine up. We've both studied history to an extent. The difference being that you concluded, the Nazis were the best solution at the time, which is an unacceptable standpoint to have on this forum. I'd be quite happy to respectively debate with you whether or not Hitler was a positive influence or not, but as a moderator, Im compelled to act along the forums guidelines. If you feel I have acted against the forums guidelines, speak out.


God forbid someone has their own opinions and/or thoughts about world history, conversations like this is part of the reason why I hate mindless sloganeers, people who can't see past their own ideology.

Well, unfortunately for you, fascists are prohibited from this forum. Now I know your not a nazi, or a fascist, but you made a pro-nazi comment. Perhaps in haste, I don't care, just don't do it again.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:43 PM
I hope you realize how much of an ass you come off as.

I didn't realise it was a popularity contest.



No where in the debate have you actually proven any of his assertions wrong, or established the fact that we supported specifically Nazi policies.

I don't have to prove that Hitler wasn't the best thing to happen to Germany for decades to justify the warning point, it's a matter of opinion. I can however point out that it's against board policy, to hold such opinions.

However, just for your own personal benefit...
"Most economists believe that the expansion of the German economy between 1933 and 1936 was not the result of the measures adopted by the Nazi Party, but rather the consequence of economic policies of the prior Weimar Republic which had begun to have an effect" - Wikipedia



To sum it all up: at worst, he made a mistatement. It's clear to anyone reading the post that he isn't a supporter of Hitler, merely that he preffered parts of its economic policy to those of Weimar Republic.

I somewhat agree, I don't think he intended to say hitler was "The best" but "the most effective" which I would still disagree with, but would probably not be valid in giving him a warning point on. He still said it, and hasn't retracted it.



So, while you're handing out warning points, be sure to hand them out to EVERYONE who prefers 'Nazi economic policies'

I certainly will hand out warning points to people who support the Nazi economic policy, which included rampant sexism, racism, murder, destruction of basic human rights, and in some cases slavery.

[Commie Dic]

I did like the idea of the Dictator being able to abolish business if needed. If they get to greedy like the damn oil companies here in america. There were some good ideas but the whole thing togethere is ridiculous. Sorry "righty" but like it has been said a thousand times now. No, we do not want another Hitler incedent. Though he made the economy of Germany the best it ahd ever been. He still was gullible. He was a push over by Himmler and the rest of them. Though like Lenin said "Fascism is Capitalism in decay." it will happen like Germany and soon America.

[Publius]

"Most economists believe that the expansion of the German economy between 1933 and 1936 was not the result of the measures adopted by the Nazi Party, but rather the consequence of economic policies of the prior Weimar Republic which had begun to have an effect" - Wikipedia

I would be inclined to agree.

But note that the Nazis allowed these reforms to continue; they didn't fuck them up.

What you don't do is as important as what you do do.

[silentrevolutionary]

I am not a strictly orthodox communist/socialist however I do believe in the inefficiencies and ill conceived present state of things. However. Absolute Democracy is a Stalinistic remake in a very undemocratic model. The titular concil you propose is the Politburo recast with a new name and the Titus a dictator without responsiveness and accountablity to the people. If anything you have taken the worst aspects of communism under the soviets and worsened it with an ever thicker veneer of democratic principals. If anything democracy needs to be more participatory and more in the hands of the government. A strong executive that is proposed by Absolute Democracy is the Wiemar Republic again. POWER TO THE MASSES NOT TO ONE.

[Ol' Dirty]

AddictivesFree has got to be the most inteletual moderator I've seen here. He or she seems to be assesing the situation rather nicely, rebutling with calm precision to your jumbled, illegible arguments.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:34 PM
I am not a strictly orthodox communist/socialist however I do believe in the inefficiencies and ill conceived present state of things. However. Absolute Democracy is a Stalinistic remake in a very undemocratic model. The titular concil you propose is the Politburo recast with a new name and the Titus a dictator without responsiveness and accountablity to the people. If anything you have taken the worst aspects of communism under the soviets and worsened it with an ever thicker veneer of democratic principals. If anything democracy needs to be more participatory and more in the hands of the government. A strong executive that is proposed by Absolute Democracy is the Wiemar Republic again. POWER TO THE MASSES NOT TO ONE.
Absolutely! Finally, a new poster with some sense!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:49 AM
AddictivesFree has got to be the most inteletual moderator I've seen here. He or she seems to be assesing the situation rather nicely, rebutling with calm precision to your jumbled, illegible arguments.
aww thanks :wub:

but Im certainly not the most intellectual .... :unsure:

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:49 AM
AddictivesFree has got to be the most inteletual moderator I've seen here. He or she seems to be assesing the situation rather nicely, rebutling with calm precision to your jumbled, illegible arguments.
You just like the girl in his/her avvie! SEXIST PIG! :lol: :lol:

AF, seriously though, you are doing a good job! :) I agree with comrade FLuxOne.

By the way, are you male or female? This his/her stuff gets annoying very fast :P

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Tormented by Treachery+Feb 4 2006, 03:07 PM--> (Tormented by Treachery @ Feb 4 2006, 03:07 PM)
[/b]


[email protected] 4 2006, 03:49 AM
AddictivesFree has got to be the most inteletual moderator I've seen here. He or she seems to be assesing the situation rather nicely, rebutling with calm precision to your jumbled, illegible arguments.

You just like the girl in his/her avvie! SEXIST PIG! :lol: :lol:

Although the girl in the pic is rather attractive, the diferentiations in her or his statements are very accurate. Also, I like feministas; that doesn't mean that I'm sexist. Not that funny a joke, really. No offense, of course; just a bit past the line of aceptabilty.


AF, seriously though, you are doing a good job! :) I agree with comrade FLuxOne.

Thank you.


By the way, are you male or female? This his/her stuff gets annoying very fast :P

The reasons we don't do that is because of the rape and abuse factor.

Peace, bros and sis's.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 01:20 PM
Go and read some German history, Hitler was the best thing to happen to the German people for decades. Untill he started his war of course. ;)

Did you know that Winston Churchill also thought so at first, and supported Adolf Hitler? It was only until Hitler threatened British hegemony in Europe did Churchill dislike Hitler. Churchill wanted a strong Germany to conduct a US/British/Nazi operation to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. But Hitler had his own agendas.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2006, 09:33 AM
Did you know that Winston Churchill also thought so at first, and supported Adolf Hitler?
So did IBM (http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/), Coa-Cola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta), Ford (http://www.thememoryhole.org/fordnazi.htm), and loads of other large businesses, Fascism in Europe was profitable, and investment shot up....meh this has nothing to do with the original topic, but im not surprised this thread became a discussion on Nazi economics :lol:

[Publius]

id you know that Winston Churchill also thought so at first, and supported Adolf Hitler? It was only until Hitler threatened British hegemony in Europe did Churchill dislike Hitler. Churchill wanted a strong Germany to conduct a US/British/Nazi operation to attack and destroy the Soviet Union. But Hitler had his own agendas.

Knew all of this thanks to Christopher Hitchens.

[shamrok16]

So you think the US will actually become a socialist or communist country? Communism would work for a country like bolivia or colomiba, but communism would never work in the United States, in fact it would ruin the United States. You automatically brand me a fascist because i post something you don't agree with at all? It's no wonder the communist movement is dead. The United States would never in a million years become communist, and you all know it. your movement is dead, and the fact that you arm chair communists think otherwise is just driving it deeper into the ground.

[Dyst]

The future for the US will be a pityfull one, as it is falling empire.

China and/or India will be the next big empire IMHO.

[ComradeOm]

I just noticed this post. Gave me quite a laugh. This "Absolute Democracy" certainly does give a new meaning to the phrase "One man, one vote" :lol:

[Sentinel]

So you think the US will actually become a socialist or communist country? Communism would work for a country like bolivia or colomiba, but communism would never work in the United States, in fact it would ruin the United States.

You are a rather confused individual, and clearly haven't studied or discussed communism at all. Did you first hear about it in the lounge of this forum? :D

Read the marxist authors! They are a mouse-click away, on marxists.org (http://www.marxists.org/)

See, communism becomes possible when capitalism has reached it's final stage of development. Therefore, it'll emerge in the most developed countries first.


You automatically brand me a fascist because i post something you don't agree with at all?

No, we automatically branded you as a fascist because you advocated a fascistoid government with a sovereign dictator.


It's no wonder the communist movement is dead.

No it isn't actually. Open, unmasked fascism is, though. (luckily.)


The United States would never in a million years become communist, and you all know it. your movement is dead, and the fact that you arm chair communists think otherwise is just driving it deeper into the ground.

I see.. we should be like you and advocate fascism instead. That would no doubt bring the communist movement to "new heights of glory". :lol: :lol:

[gmaster]

Additives Free:

"Maybe you should shut up nazi-boy, before I give you another warning point for defending the nazi economic policy."


sounds to me like someone doesnt like freedom of speech :ph34r:

[Guerrilla22]

Absolute democracy isn't a new idea, according to the early theorist that came up with the definition of democracy, democracy is when everyone within a society has a say in every political transaction in that society, therefore they argue that democracy can only happen when there is no government, such as in an anarchist or communist society.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:19 PM
Additives Free:

"Maybe you should shut up nazi-boy, before I give you another warning point for defending the nazi economic policy."


sounds to me like someone doesnt like freedom of speech :ph34r:
From "RevLeft Guidelines":


Note: Fascists of all kinds are not allowed to post on RevLeft. This includes 'National Bolsheviks', 'third positionists' and all other pseudo-leftist fascists. Known fascists are not allowed to post here, no matter what they post. Also, hardcore Stalinists won't find many friends here. Stalinist members are free to post in all forums unless they show they are not able to have a polite and respectful debate.

Sounds like someone should read what they agreed to. :)

[Zak]

No need to keep killing this idea, but where did you get the name absolute democracy? Its ironic concidering you base your idea off of Roman Emporers, though that's probabley just becaus you thought Ttitus sounds cool. Anyone who would run for dictator would inherintly corrupt or do so for feer of government by a corrupt man, but the way you describe it the dictator would controle the next election.

[TC]

this thread is increadibly silly...lol @ coining the term 'titus.'