|
posted by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 3:43PM
I didn't say they welcomed them "openly" -- I simply said that the morals of the majority of poles and germans (and i'm sure other cultures) at that time were very much in agreement with Nazi morals. And it was for this reason that #1 Hitler came into power and was openly supported (of course, not by /everyone/) and #2 Poland et al didn't offer enough resistance. Remember, it was culturally acceptable to hate Jews and gays and all sorts of other non-catholic things. Having militaries (or even a "state" for that matter) exacerbates things -- people feel artificially compelled to make everyone in their arbitrary sandbox conform to their ideals -- it segregates people and makes them more radical. And then, throwing militaries into this powder keg, wars are inevitable. Abolishing the state and militaries would instantly get rid of warfare.
As for the case of Jim Baxter, that's exactly why there is absolutely no need for secret ballots. We live in a society that shuns dumbasses like Wappel. A simple call to the media blew things out of proportion, and I'm sure Baxter will get waay more than he ever expected. The point is, you either live in a decent society, or you don't. If you do, secret ballots are unecessary (they're not bad -- just not necessary); if you don't, it doesn't matter what kind of polling you do, you'll get fucked over. Get it?
How do you figure my "beliefs" are unrealistic? I am aware of people's temptation to steal my money -- I realize many people are corrupt -- and I have no problem fighting them on my own. There is absolutely no need for policed-states -- or even states -- they only serve to oppress people.
Also, banks don't "hold back the man". (Although I still don't like the way they work, and am still looking for a similar service that simply holds my money and provides easy access to it.)
|
posted by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 1:07AM
>Abolishing the state and militaries would instantly get rid of warfare.
Evidence?
|
posted by dennisn on June 11th, 2008 at 11:08AM
It's a logical deduction. Wars are fought solely on behalf of the state. American farmers didn't join ww2 because they wanted to -- their government forced them to. Wars do not belong in the realm of individuals. They are state-creations. The solution is to idealize the individual (as was /supposed/ to be enshrined in our constitutions) -- to shun the state.
|
posted by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 12:16PM
>It's a logical deduction.
Deduction from what? What's your path of reasoning, what are your assumptions.
|
|
|
|
fa;sdjfposted by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 4:52PM
Getting rid of government/military. End result war lords, sadly there's always someone with a gun who sees his point of view being more important. Best example I can think of is Afghanistan after they push out the USSR but I'm not the best historian.
Also enough resistance? What's enough resistance the extermination of all the resistance personnel by death, say like in genocide, would that satisfy enough resistance? Warsaw uprising, 85% of the city destroyed and about half of the population of the city dead. Don't quote me on the figures but they are extremely high.
Also there's a reason most Jews left other European countries for Poland because it was the most tolerant for the Jews. Of course there was anti-semitism as there is now but that still doesn't explain why force was used/needed to enter if morals are similar enough (not just the jews/gays fought back). Say like Nazis going into Austria that can be said openly. As I remember you first stated openly then made some weird half openly statement like now after the force was brought up. Plus the German invasion was to gain power of the land and its resources for the best race. The Jews/gays was just the icing on the cake.
Instead of trying to explain why the resistance didn't work, or why the soldiers didn't retreat or see their error. You tend to instead to jump to they shouldn't exist. The fact remains they do exist and are unlikely to go away. Why because people who see that the military that they fund is there to protect their believes/rights from other invaders. If not you won't last long even if you have an anarchy state. Also you'll bring up that they'll see the logic of their ways and why the military isn't needed so on. Since they are logical people and will listen to your reason. Sadly I've listened to yours countless times and am no closer to seeing your light. So either you are wrong or you can't explain your logic well enough. OR I am just one illogical person you'll encounter but I fear you'll realize one day that makes the majority of the people who doesn't and won't share your believes.
Secret ballots: again are there so the proper and fairest form of government democracy can be put in place without the fear of the current ruling party/government taking reprisals if they don't like the results or if you pick the loser the ruling party can't fuck with you.
Again your beliefs only can come true if everyone does as you expect. Since they do nothing as you expect now what makes them change all of a sudden if say the government is gone. Example maybe people like to have someone (Police) who controls the law so they don't have to. In the cowboy days there use to be a sheriff why is that?
Again, I can hold your money. I'll even maybe return you some if you need it. Is money that important for you that you must have it in your possession? Shouldn't you not need money if you don't need anything that society provides you? You should be able to do without all the supports in your life or are you relying on others to provide you with everything for a meaningless paper?
|
posted by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 10:11PM
We clearly have to agree to disagree. You /want/ to pay for police and professional killers to protect "your country". I don't. I would rather pay for roads, medicine and fiber-to-the-curb. The point is, nobody should be forcing me to pay for bullshit I /adamantly/ oppose. On the same note, I can't stop you from wasting your money however you like. (Don't forget to keep stockpiling all those nukes. Brilliant idea. Hey, if N. Korea has 'em -- yee haaw.)
Secret ballots: you didn't add anything new to the topic. I realize there is /some/ remote possibility of abuse, but not here. As far as N. America is concerned, there is nothing gained by keeping votes secret. Come to think about it, it's not really an issue -- my whole point that day was to make eelections cheap secure and frequent. -- And I'm sure you can anonymity with that as well --- machines can know who you voted for, but you can easily keep that information one-way encrypted within the machine. We need to be voting MUCH more often!
Finally, I'm not rejecting /everything/ society has to offer. I simply want to be able to choose what I want -- and REJECT WHAT I DON'T! The idea that a huge chunk of the ~$2000 that the gov stole from me last year is going toward killing people, providing catholic schools and imprisoning marijuana smokers makes me VOMIT. (Meanwhile, almost every fucking bike-ride downtown punctures my tires due to piece-of-shit roads and absolute disregard for cyclists. Killing people. Or clean bike lanes. Tough call.)
|
|
|
