General discussion...

[[KMA]Avenger]

Formally know as "Debating Semper, if you're interested?".

I thought a change of topic title was in order since this discussion has taken on a more general direction




On the fallacy of the false left v right political paradigm...this quote pretty much sums it up for me:

"Governments, one and all, partake of the nature of rackets. They become partners in crime and ultimately annihilate the civilization over which they preside.”
--Joel Saladin

Quoting Frank Serpico: the word politics can be broken into 2 parts "poli" Greek for "Many" and "tics" which are blood sucking parasites...my interpretation of what Serpico says: put the 2 together and we have many blood sucking parasites running our nations and our lives.

Both Saladin and Serpico have not told us anything that has not been true throughout history, and is true to this very day. Govt-regardless if they are labour, liberal or conservative-are there to serve their own agenda, the agenda of the banks and the corporations. they are not there to look after you, they are not there to look after the interests of the nation, if they were they would have told the banks to take a hike in 08, instead we are on the verge of a 3rd round of bailouts. more than that, we are on the verge of global economic collapse with no hope in sight.

The economy is just 1 aspect "the Govt" is incapable of running, to try and cover all of Govts failings would mean an impossible debate, so i'm sticking to just a few points.

to quote Thomas Jefferson:

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

Edit: Anything Govt touches turns to crap (i prefer to use the word "**Filtered**" but that's censored on these boards), look at education, healthcare, immigration, the economy, policing, anything else Govt is involved in. when Govts are not restricted they ultimately become useless self serving institutions of ineptness and corruption...unless you can prove otherwise?


I was hoping you would have taken me up on my offer of a debate from the London Riots thread, but since you have not, i decided i would do so myself

[MEZZANINE]

Deya Vu, Sure we've had this debate many times already

Only thing I find amusing on this topic is how people fight & die to get our version of democracy in other nations when it doesnt even work in our own.

They say human ingenuity & imagination is limitless, maybe so, but so is human stupidity, greed & conceit.

[[KMA]Avenger]

We've had the debate about Govts and associated Govt corruption but not a debate about left v right...i don't think

Anyways, my point is there is no difference between ANY of the parties, those who think there is are delusional...or hopelessly blind...1 of the 2, maybe both

[Kit-Fox]

Removed

[[KMA]Avenger]

of course there is a difference between the various veiwpoints of the political spectrum.

I think perhaps you mean that there is no difference between the dominanat parties of those viewpoints. IE there is a clear difference between communism & democracy,however there is no difference between (in the UK at least) the Conservative Party & The Labour Party

Exactly, and that is what this thread is about.

[spoiler]On a side note, if there is a difference between say, democracy, fascism and communism...i have yet to find it
The end result of today's version of democracy, fascism and communism is a dictatorship. regardless of the ideology, it's all the same crap.[/spoiler]

[MEZZANINE]

We've had the debate about Govts and associated Govt corruption but not a debate about left v right...i don't think

Anyways, my point is there is no difference between ANY of the parties, those who think there is are delusional...or hopelessly blind...1 of the 2, maybe both

I think their used to be differences, for example here in the UK

Labour ( Left ) used to believe in state ownership of all essential services, all utilities ( Water, Elec & Gas ), public transport ( Trains & Buses ), communication ( British Telecom & Royal Mail ), etc. And equality by lowering everyone to a common denominator in wealth through taxation of the rich, in knowledge through comprehensive education, in healthcare through the NHS.

Conservative ( Right ) used to believe in individual ownership, originally through the class system and later classifying by wealth and accomplishment. Allowing those who are born to wealth, or smart enough to work their way up to wealth to reap the rewards of better heathcare, education, quality of life while the rest fall into the wage slave worker class below. In keeping with the natural competitive nature of people but with 1% winning and 99% losing out.

Both ideologies were mutually exclusive, in conflict and neither worked in practice.

Now the left have given up on re-nationalization of essential services as they seek wider internationisation ( European Government ) and EU Monopoly laws prevent nationalised services. But they still want state control of private service providers through laws and bureaucracy. They still want the rich to pay for the poor even though they had to give up on things like 'super tax' as it just drove the rich out of the country. And the still want worker rights but have given up on Unions since unions got to powerful and started holding the country to ransom.

The right got their way on privatisation but it didnt work how they wanted it, instead of letting everyone directly own share in service providers it simply gave one generation a short term income boost then all the shares were bought up by corporations that now squeeze the next generation for profits. The right got their way on selling of social housing in the hope that everyone would own their homes and relieve the state of the burden, again this failed, one generation of social housing tenants bought, borrowed against and sold their homes living beyond their means and now we have a massive housing shortage deliberating created by the private sector to increase demand ( prices and profits ). Despite these failures they still want to devolve more, reduce government and hand more control over to the private sector Re healthcare, education, prisons, maybe even policing.


Could rant on forever, but it basically comes down to the left got greedy when they got power, and the right were force to take on some social ideals to get the votes of the masses and regain power.

Politicians in the past use to preach what they believed in and say if you agree vote for me

Politicians today say 'what do you want ?' then promise to do it regardless of ideology

In democracies

The 1st objective is to get into power

The 2nd objective is the maintain power

All ideals and beliefs of what is best for the country and people and way down the list of priorities because what really best is usually the opposite of what is needed for the 1st & 2nd objectives.

[semper]

My apologies. I pay very little attention these days to most things. It's been a while since i've debated anyone...call me arrogant (many do) but I find it a stretch finding worthy opponents.

On the fallacy of the false left v right political paradigm...this quote pretty much sums it up for me:

"Governments, one and all, partake of the nature of rackets. They become partners in crime and ultimately annihilate the civilization over which they preside.”
--Joel Saladin

Quoting Frank Serpico: the word politics can be broken into 2 parts "poli" Greek for "Many" and "tics" which are blood sucking parasites...my interpretation of what Serpico says: put the 2 together and we have many blood sucking parasites running our nations and our lives.

Both Saladin and Serpico have not told us anything that has not been true throughout history, and is true to this very day. Govt-regardless if they are labour, liberal or conservative-are there to serve their own agenda, the agenda of the banks and the corporations. they are not there to look after you, they are not there to look after the interests of the nation, if they were they would have told the banks to take a hike in 08, instead we are on the verge of a 3rd round of bailouts. more than that, we are on the verge of global economic collapse with no hope in sight.

The economy is just 1 aspect "the Govt" is incapable of running, to try and cover all of Govts failings would mean an impossible debate, so i'm sticking to just a few points.

to quote Thomas Jefferson:

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

Edit: Anything Govt touches turns to crap (i prefer to use the word "**Filtered**" but that's censored on these boards), look at education, healthcare, immigration, the economy, policing, anything else Govt is involved in. when Govts are not restricted they ultimately become useless self serving institutions of ineptness and corruption...unless you can prove otherwise?


I was hoping you would have taken me up on my offer of a debate from the London Riots thread, but since you have not, i decided i would do so myself

Prove it. Quoting me a list of opinions betwixt your own opinion isn't a debate, it's a discussion amongst friends. Fair enough you've attempted to lay your side down and what you intend to convince me of but it's unsupported as far as this thread goes (even if by my own admittance i'm well aware of the global economic situation and did a business module at university on globalisation and the economic crisis) and as the instigator of the debate the burden of proof is yours. However, for the sake of simplicity and to reply more whilst I am here to do so.. i'll continue in the attitude you've laid down.

I have to ask in advance though. Are you trying to convince a self proclaimed misanthrope that other human beings are not to be trusted? Or are you trying to convince me that elected officials are more untrustworthy relative to the average joe? OR, better yet... are you just trying to convince me that no one should have power? Then i'd pose to you how exactly you intend to do it? Are you going to give me a list of scandals where an elected human being has abused their power for personal gain? To which I might return any rape case back to you.

It only seems, from the quotes you've levelled at me that taking your position to a final conclusion the only system that you could cope with is anarchy as any system presided over by a human being would always be subject to our species boundless lust for power and incalcuable stupidity.

How do you restrict a body that is there to govern? Take away it's decision making power? Bury it beneath legislation and rules? How then shall it govern efficiently? Rally the nation to vote every time a decision is necessary? When would this happen? Before or after the seperatist nation launched the nuclear bomb? But they could govern that decision? Alright.. what about a vote to see if we should have the Olympics or not? When would that happen...before or after the fall of the hammer?

But people riot. Well humans are never happy. You win the lotto.. you hear money doesn't buy happiness. You get married and then 75% of them get divorced. You go to the gym, lift too much and break your ass for a few days. You make a documentary on large sting rays and get stabbed in the heart....but you died doing something you loved. Happy? No? REALLY!?

My position is in support of the government not because I believe in the power of the people elected or even because I have some false modicum of faith in their ability to remain inbiast because that's impossible. No. It's because I understand their flaws, because surprisingly enough they may be corrupt but they don't run around with guns trying to rape the daughter I don't have and as someone who likes to think they're at least remotely intelligent I'd like to think I can sympathise with the PM putting aside a nest egg for his retirement whilst trying to justify two wars and a few thousand other peoples selfishness...on the other hand i'd like to think i'm above mass genocide for the sake of power.. at least on a friday. Oh.. and let's not forget that unless you do want anarchy... someone has to be the corrupt politician because to be honest I wouldn't want to be caught in the fake hotel room with baby powder and two random skanks I paid to stand near me for three hours hoping someone with a camera would walk in, so i'm glad Gordon, Tony, George and all the rest were there to take that hit for me.

Or I suppose we can haze away from this pee on the process of democracy (which I admit I think the system is rubbish ((I'm Pro-dictatorship/Oligarchy)), but it's what we've got atm) and perhaps tread back towards left vs right wing? In which case i'll just refer you back to the rapist and the other power abusing humans as to why people should have less control over their own lives but then we end up in a circular situation as we end up with that whole 'who'll watch the watchers' thing.

Either way...I suppose I would rather keep this a fairly friendly discussion as I probably wont be around enough for a formal debate, hell it's taken me X amount of days to even see this existed and I havn't even gone back to read the riots thread yet (not that I really intend to).

EDIT: I just read the comments and post's made after your inital post. Right. So it is right vs left. Or labour vs Tory. Well that's pretty darn simple then isn't it. They're obviously different in a few ways. Firstly one is 'in power' the other isn't and...well the others would be located in their general MO (no, i'm not going to go find all the info and write a long comparison right now, i've been awake 24hours and i'm tired lol)..as otherwise why would they debate on anything? Why would the labour party openly challenge things the tories did? I mean, if they're exactly the same? Are you telling me it's all showmanship? Some grand scheme to make sure an opposing power is always needed? Admittedly these chaps are not idiots but to have cooked up such a machiavellian masterpiece on purpose and keep it going for several hundred years... well... I think even Palpatine would be jealous.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Sorry i haven't been around to respond to you Semper there's been a bereavement in my family and i'm not in the right frame of mind to debate/discuss much with anyone at the moment.

When i am able to respond i'll pm you so you know a reply has been posted...

Till then, hope everyone stays safe and well.

[[BoT] Jason]

Sorry to hear about your loss, should I lock until further notice?

[[KMA]Avenger]

Thanks, that's very much appreciated.

I don't think that would be necessary, but i have no objection if you think it best to lock.


Thanks again.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Boy oh boy!!!!

That post IMHO is wrong on so many levels i have absolutely no idea where to start, so i've taken 1 section and will concentrate there:

How do you restrict a body that is there to govern? Take away it's decision making power? Bury it beneath legislation and rules? How then shall it govern efficiently? Rally the nation to vote every time a decision is necessary? When would this happen? Before or after the seperatist nation launched the nuclear bomb? But they could govern that decision? Alright.. what about a vote to see if we should have the Olympics or not? When would that happen...before or after the fall of the hammer?

The sarcasm aside, i've underlined the initial point...easy!
1) take away the Govts ability to borrow money from ANY source.
2) get rid of the standing army.

Those 2 are an excellent start in putting Govt back in it's box and living without fear of the Govt when it should be the Govt that is afraid of us the people.


Think about that before you reply and attempt to put words into my mouth

[Morbius Liadon]

Okay, so Semper was the ONLY post I saw in this thread that seems to make an intelligent argument. I'll just go through a couple things here...

...serve their own agenda, the agenda of the banks and the corporations. they are not there to look after you, they are not there to look after the interests of the nation, if they were they would have told the banks to take a hike in 08, instead we are on the verge of a 3rd round of bailouts.

Okay so you wanted the government to NOT bail the banks out and just let them fall? Because that is just idiotic. If the banks all fell, our economy would crumble. Most loans, personal and business, come from banks. Buy a house? Oops, no bank to give you a mortgage. New car? Oops, no auto loans. Small businesses? All gone since they can't get any loans. Big business may manage, though would surely diminish and likely fall along with the rest of the economy. Many banks in the US, and abroad for that matter, are what is called 'too big to fail'. They NEED to be bailed out because it will have SEVERE economic effects if they fail. Think about if Bank of America, which currently hold something like 1.3 trillion dollars in assets, just tanked. Wouldn't that have a rather profound effect on the economy? Banks that receive bailouts also usually don't just get the money for free. They are often merged into banks willing to take on their liabilities, or take out loans from either other banks at the 'discount window', or from the Federal Reserve System directly.

The economy is just 1 aspect "the Govt" is incapable of running, to try and cover all of Govts failings would mean an impossible debate, so i'm sticking to just a few points.

So you can do better? Plus, most of the economy is controlled, at least the parts that are controlled, by the Federal Reserve, which is mostly free from political pressures as the Board of Governors serve 14-year, non-renewable terms. They have literally THOUSANDS of economists doing research every day, I think I can rely on them more than any single person.

On a side note, if there is a difference between say, democracy, fascism and communism...i have yet to find it
The end result of today's version of democracy, fascism and communism is a dictatorship.
regardless of the ideology, it's all the same crap.

This is a VERY ignorant statement. Maybe you should look into North Korea, the USSR, Nazi-Germany, and a host of other repressive governments, and then tell me that all ideology's are the same. We are a liberal democracy, and perhaps if you tried posting this in a true dictatorship, such as in North Korea, you could be shot for speaking against the government, and then maybe you would see the difference. Also, why did speak of communism as if it were the same type of ideology as democracy? Democracy refers to the manner in which government is established, which is by popular vote in this case. Communism however, refers to the economic manner in which the country is run.

1) take away the Govts ability to borrow money from ANY source.
2) get rid of the standing army.

Those 2 are an excellent start in putting Govt back in it's box and living without fear of the Govt when it should be the Govt that is afraid of us the people.

You can't be serious with this one. Okay so the government can't borrow money.... great now the country has no money, as it can longer sell treasury bonds, which also means that our economy is broken. Huzzah! Borrowing money is necessary in our economy, and to take away the governments ability to do so, you cripple the entire nation. Ok and now that our economy is dead, we have disbanded our standing military... It just gets even more stupid! A country NEEDS a standing, on ready, military to dissuade attacks. Does any country not have a military, excluded ones like Vatican City which are protected by other militarys? They all have a standing military because otherwise, they would just end up part of another country.

While I don't wholly agree with Semper's post, it was well written and had strong arguments. Avenger, you on the other hand have not said a single respectable thing. I highly suggest you go study some law, politics, and economy before attempting to debate such things Avenger. GL in life hating government, and if anarchy ever does finally come about, I'll make sure to come to your house and steal your TV

[[KMA]Avenger]

I see this is going to be VERY hard to get people to see things as they truly are.
Try going back to Americas congressional records from the beginning and reading right through to modern times. you will see that the very same issues and enemies the US faced from the outset are the EXACT same issues and enemies we face today....the banksters.

I think it's you that needs to go study economics and politics.


How did i know a reply like this would come!?!

Think about that before you reply and attempt to put words into my mouth

You can't be serious with this one. Okay so the government can't borrow money.... great now the country has no money, as it can longer sell treasury bonds, which also means that our economy is broken. Huzzah! Borrowing money is necessary in our economy, and to take away the governments ability to do so, you cripple the entire nation.

Govts can issue bonds which as you should well know-is nothing more than an IOU...why can it not issue money at ZERO % interest spent into the economy with public works? (do you even understand what started Americas war of independence? to quote President James Madison and Ben Franklin:
"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance."
President James Madison

[spoiler]During a visit to Britain in 1763, The Bank of England asked Benjamin Franklin how he would account for the new found prosperity in the colonies. Franklin replied.

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.

In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
Benjamin Franklin 1

America had learned that the people's confidence in the currency was all they needed, and they could be free of borrowing debts. That would mean being free of the Bank of England.

In Response the world's most powerful independent bank used its influence on the British parliament to press for the passing of the Currency Act of 1764.

This act made it illegal for the colonies to print their own money, and forced them to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold.

Here is what Franklin said after that.

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
Benjamin Franklin

"The colonies would gladly have borne a little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War."
Benjamin Franklin's autobiography[/spoiler] )
You could then have EXTREMELY low taxes which would only be necessary to remove old money from circulation which would keep inflation/deflation at ZERO thereby protecting the value of OUR money, instead of BORROWING money at INTEREST from privately owned central banks....which by the way, having a central bank is plank 5 of the communist manifesto!
I could go on an on about the benefits of not having a central bank.

I see you have no idea how money is created in the modern economy.

Loans and money borrowed from private banks does not exist UNTIL you sign on the dotted line...in short...your signature has more value than that paper in your pocket you so highly praise.
You are also charged interest for money created out of thin air, as is our Govt.



Let me ask you this, do you know which country had the most successful monetary system EVER created, what it was called and what was used as that money???

I'll give you a hint...it wasn't paper.

Some essential reading for you: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

Ok and now that our economy is dead, we have disbanded our standing military... It just gets even more stupid! A country NEEDS a standing, on ready, military to dissuade attacks. Does any country not have a military, excluded ones like Vatican City which are protected by other militarys? They all have a standing military because otherwise, they would just end up part of another country.

Really? i STRONGLY recommend you research General Smedley Butler and his book book: War is a Racket. you can also research what BP had our intell and troops do to Mohammed Mossadegh before you try to lecture me about standing army's.

While I don't wholly agree with Semper's post, it was well written and had strong arguments. Avenger, you on the other hand have not said a single respectable thing. I highly suggest you go study some law, politics, and economy before attempting to debate such things Avenger. GL in life hating government, and if anarchy ever does finally come about, I'll make sure to come to your house and steal your TV

That statement alone shows that you have no idea what a true anarchist is. you also throughout your reply have attempted to 2nd guess my meanings instead of using critical thinking and RESEARCH to understand what i have posted....which is simple to understand since i don't know how to mince words and be cryptic in my meanings.

I also NEVER said or hinted that i hate the idea of having a Govt. get off your high horse and try to show some semblance of understanding.


Thank you and have a good day

[[KMA]Avenger]

Edited my above post...sorry

[Morbius Liadon]

Your arguments lack basis in fact, and I see no point in continuing. I have said my piece, and that is all I really have to say on that matter. As for your last post, I should look at two things.

...which by the way, having a central bank is plank 5 of the communist manifesto!

What does that have to do with anything? Personally, I AM a Communist. I label myself as a Democratic Socialist because I believe that human corruption runs too deep to promote a working communism on a large scale, but regardless, I believe in its ideology.

I think it's you that needs to go study economics and politics.

I currently study both politics and economics at an Ivy League school