That was to seal the escape route for American soldiers fleeing north to avoid combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democracies are better
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Yeah but all that did was cause suicides rates in the US Armed Forces to spike!...
God you are stupid but what is worse, you have no idea how stupid you are. You contantly confuse the political system of a state with the economic system. Sweden is the world role model for socialists like the NDP but it is not the only one. Many northern European states are social democratic states. Nobody today want to take over industry except in rare instances for public policy purposes. People want advanced social welfare states with 1) much higher public pensions, 2) much higher public education expenditure including free tuition, 3) totally free medicare including drugs and dentistry, 4) radically upgraded public transportation 5) much more emphasis on the environment.ROFLMAO, everybody knows you are a pinko kook, dumber than those poked fun by Don Cherry.
Sweden is a socialist state? You are obviously f*cked up as usual since the last time I read, Sweden is a Constitutional monarchy just like the UK, a vibrant social democracy that respect private ownership and minimal public ownership of some industry.
Joker like you OTOH is working overdrive to convince the uninformed that Sweden is a country obsessed to have "commanding heights" of the economy nationalized, so that capitalism and the procurement of wage labor for private profit is abolished at least in the major productive and social spheres. That's the characteristic of a socialist state and just in case you are dumb as everybody could tell, there is no Monarch in a socialist state since the loonie left favor a republican form of government.
Needless to say, you flunk the exam on differentiating political ideology.
BTW, the law of the jungle applies to the stateless society/failed state, say Somalia or Afghanistan, not Mercantile Capitalist society like the USA and China.
Canada is a mixed system today tipped towards capitalism today but with any luck, tipped towards social democracy in the future.
The world now understands that capitalism is too cruel, unfair and irrisponsible but pure forms of socialism are too inefficient and lethargic. Social Democracy is where we are all headed but it can be easy or painful.
B
burt-oh-my!
LOL! How ironic, you scold the quotee about mixing economic policy with political systems, then you yourself compare capitalism (an economic system - no?) with 'social democracy' - a political ideology.
I find the whole left/right economic debate silly. I think everyone knows that capitalism produces the highest growth over the long haul, and socialism takes some of that growth away for purposes of income redistribution and other social causes.
Capitalism is the engine, and , creating a metaphor appropriate to the current conditions, lets say socialism is the heater, the windshield wipers, the radio, and the heated seats. The battery is the country's ability to borrow. You gotta take care of your engine first, but eventually you want some of the other perks.
B
burt-oh-my!
Nonsense, it is a political ideology which OF COURSE LIKE ANY OTHER POLITICAL IDEOLOGY has a preferred economic model. The economic system which it promotes is the 'mixed economy'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
ROFLMAO... too funny...but there is a lot of grey area between your ideology and Fuji's
I did not realize that Captain Kirk from the Starship Enterprise was Swiss...
Fuji, you are truly hilarious. Someone might have point it this out already, but do you realize how much hypocrisy there is in your post?
1. You claim that democracy is better and we should follow democracy
2. Then you go on to say that non-democratic people should not be allowed to participate in democracy.
Democracy as the best of a bad lot. I think that is the most appropriate verbage.
There are many problems with democracy as it is currently practiced in then Western World.
That's your problem.
Feel free to volunteer and do counseling.
Or you could jump for joy and take advantage by punting CXW, MATW/SCC, UHS or SWHC.
Eric, everybody knows you are not only a pinko kook but we're quite surprised you are related to Woodpeckr, Flubby, Gryfin etc.
Do everybody else a favor and stop acting like an a**clown by posting political ideology nonsense.
Stick to what you are good at, say focus on punting cheap Asian ATF SPs or whatever (FYI, quite a substantial number of them are "surplus/leftovers, very average looking"). Those ladies probably make you feel like a white somebody instead of trailer park type.
BTW, you may get lucky to con those uninformed over there that you're related to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, despite the fact you don't sound like one.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/rent-a-white-guy/8119/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37759560/Now_Hiring_Fake_Executives_in_China_No_Experience_Required
"the people" represents a collective, not specific people. I am not an expert on the UN but here is an excerpt wikipedia.
As you can see below, the General Assembly acts as a democracy. Decisions are made in a democratic way.
General Assembly
United Nations General Assembly hall.Main article: United Nations General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations. Composed of all United Nations member states, the assembly meets in regular yearly sessions under a president elected from among the member states. Over a two-week period at the start of each session, all members have the opportunity to address the assembly. Traditionally, the Secretary-General makes the first statement, followed by the president of the assembly. The first session was convened on 10 January 1946 in the Westminster Central Hall in London and included representatives of 51 nations.
When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include: recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and, budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security that are under Security Council consideration.
Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote (see List of countries by population). However, as no more than recommendations, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a recommendation by member states constituting just eight percent of the world's population, would be adhered to by the remaining ninety-two percent of the population, should they object.
I think free society without rulers > monarchy > democracy.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe expresses this order while taking on the sacred cow of the American constitutionally limited democratic republic.
http://mises.org/daily/2874
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
III - The American Constitution
But what was the next step once independence from Britain had been won? This question leads to the third source of national pride — the American Constitution — and the explanation as to why this Constitution, rather than being a legitimate source of pride, represents a fateful error.
... According to Mises and Rothbard, once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer — the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist.[6]
Indeed, the inflated price of protection and the perversion of the ancient law by the English king, both of which had led the American colonists to revolt, were the inevitable result of compulsory monopoly. Having successfully seceded and thrown out the British occupiers, it would only have been necessary for the American colonists to let the existing homegrown institutions of self-defense and private (voluntary and cooperative) protection and adjudication by specialized agents and agencies take care of law and order.
This did not happen, however. ...
This Constitution provided for the substitution of a popularly elected parliament and president for an unelected king, but it changed nothing regarding their power to tax and legislate. To the contrary, while the English king's power to tax without consent had only been assumed rather than explicitly granted and was thus in dispute,[8] the Constitution explicitly granted this very power to Congress. Furthermore, while kings — in theory, even absolute kings — had not been considered the makers but only the interpreters and executors of preexisting and immutable law, i.e., as judges rather than legislators,[9] the Constitution explicitly vested Congress with the power of legislating, and the president and the Supreme Court with the powers of executing and interpreting such legislated law.[10]
In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection.
These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful. As Rothbard explained,
Moreover, because the Constitution provided explicitly for "open entry" into state government — anyone could become a member of Congress, president, or a Supreme Court judge — resistance against state property invasions declined; and as the result of "open political competition" the entire character structure of society became distorted, and more and more bad characters rose to the top.[12]
Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy.
In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it.[13] In an anarchocapitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person — the king — can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion.[14] Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course; at the same time, however, it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person.
In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution, everyone becomes a potential threat.
To be sure, there are people who are unafflicted by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics — the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation) — is permitted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected.
In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral scruples, even these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success — good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc. — are distributed unequally among men, then those with these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared with those without them.
Worse still, given that, in every society, more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive, hence dangerous, rather than defensive, hence harmless, political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing.
Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success, not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.
Moreover, the constitutionally provided "separation of powers" makes no difference in this regard. Two or even three wrongs do not make a right. To the contrary, they lead to the proliferation, accumulation, reinforcement, and aggravation of error. ...
Hans-Hermann Hoppe expresses this order while taking on the sacred cow of the American constitutionally limited democratic republic.
http://mises.org/daily/2874
On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
III - The American Constitution
But what was the next step once independence from Britain had been won? This question leads to the third source of national pride — the American Constitution — and the explanation as to why this Constitution, rather than being a legitimate source of pride, represents a fateful error.
... According to Mises and Rothbard, once there is no longer free entry into the business of the production of protection and adjudication, the price of protection and justice will rise and their quality will fall. Rather than being a protector and judge, a compulsory monopolist will become a protection racketeer — the destroyer and invader of the people and property that he is supposed to protect, a warmonger, and an imperialist.[6]
Indeed, the inflated price of protection and the perversion of the ancient law by the English king, both of which had led the American colonists to revolt, were the inevitable result of compulsory monopoly. Having successfully seceded and thrown out the British occupiers, it would only have been necessary for the American colonists to let the existing homegrown institutions of self-defense and private (voluntary and cooperative) protection and adjudication by specialized agents and agencies take care of law and order.
This did not happen, however. ...
This Constitution provided for the substitution of a popularly elected parliament and president for an unelected king, but it changed nothing regarding their power to tax and legislate. To the contrary, while the English king's power to tax without consent had only been assumed rather than explicitly granted and was thus in dispute,[8] the Constitution explicitly granted this very power to Congress. Furthermore, while kings — in theory, even absolute kings — had not been considered the makers but only the interpreters and executors of preexisting and immutable law, i.e., as judges rather than legislators,[9] the Constitution explicitly vested Congress with the power of legislating, and the president and the Supreme Court with the powers of executing and interpreting such legislated law.[10]
In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection.
These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful. As Rothbard explained,
while a private owner, secure in his property and owning its capital value, plans the use of his resource over a long period of time, the government official must milk the property as quickly as he can, since he has no security of ownership. … [G]overnment officials own the use of resources but not their capital value (except in the case of the "private property" of a hereditary monarch). When only the current use can be owned, but not the resource itself, there will quickly ensue uneconomic exhaustion of the resources, since it will be to no one's benefit to conserve it over a period of time and to every owner's advantage to use it up as quickly as possible. … The private individual, secure in his property and in his capital resource, can take the long view, for he wants to maintain the capital value of his resource. It is the government official who must take and run, who must plunder the property while he is still in command.[11]
Moreover, because the Constitution provided explicitly for "open entry" into state government — anyone could become a member of Congress, president, or a Supreme Court judge — resistance against state property invasions declined; and as the result of "open political competition" the entire character structure of society became distorted, and more and more bad characters rose to the top.[12]
Free entry and competition is not always good. Competition in the production of goods is good, but competition in the production of bads is not. Free competition in killing, stealing, counterfeiting, or swindling, for instance, is not good; it is worse than bad. Yet this is precisely what is instituted by open political competition, i.e., democracy.
In every society, people who covet another man's property exist, but in most cases people learn not to act on this desire or even feel ashamed for entertaining it.[13] In an anarchocapitalist society in particular, anyone acting on such a desire is considered a criminal and is suppressed by physical violence. Under monarchical rule, by contrast, only one person — the king — can act on his desire for another man's property, and it is this that makes him a potential threat. However, because only he can expropriate while everyone else is forbidden to do likewise, a king's every action will be regarded with utmost suspicion.[14] Moreover, the selection of a king is by accident of his noble birth. His only characteristic qualification is his upbringing as a future king and preserver of the dynasty and its possessions. This does not assure that he will not be evil, of course; at the same time, however, it does not preclude that a king might actually be a harmless dilettante or even a decent person.
In distinct contrast, by freeing up entry into government, the Constitution permitted anyone to openly express his desire for other men's property; indeed, owing to the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech," everyone is protected in so doing. Moreover, everyone is permitted to act on this desire, provided that he gains entry into government; hence, under the Constitution, everyone becomes a potential threat.
To be sure, there are people who are unafflicted by the desire to enrich themselves at the expense of others and to lord it over them; that is, there are people who wish only to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. However, if politics — the acquisition of goods by political means (taxation and legislation) — is permitted, even these harmless people will be profoundly affected.
In order to defend themselves against attacks on their liberty and property by those who have fewer moral scruples, even these honest, hardworking people must become "political animals" and spend more and more time and energy developing their political skills. Given that the characteristics and talents required for political success — good looks, sociability, oratorical power, charisma, etc. — are distributed unequally among men, then those with these particular characteristics and skills will have a sound advantage in the competition for scarce resources (economic success) as compared with those without them.
Worse still, given that, in every society, more "have-nots" of everything worth having exist than "haves," the politically talented who have little or no inhibition against taking property and lording it over others will have a clear advantage over those with such scruples. That is, open political competition favors aggressive, hence dangerous, rather than defensive, hence harmless, political talents and will thus lead to the cultivation and perfection of the peculiar skills of demagoguery, deception, lying, opportunism, corruption, and bribery. Therefore, entrance into and success within government will become increasingly impossible for anyone hampered by moral scruples against lying and stealing.
Unlike kings then, congressmen, presidents, and Supreme Court judges do not and cannot acquire their positions accidentally. Rather, they reach their position because of their proficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Moreover, even outside the orbit of government, within civil society, individuals will increasingly rise to the top of economic and financial success, not on account of their productive or entrepreneurial talents or even their superior defensive political talents, but rather because of their superior skills as unscrupulous political entrepreneurs and lobbyists. Thus, the Constitution virtually assures that exclusively dangerous men will rise to the pinnacle of government power and that moral behavior and ethical standards will tend to decline and deteriorate over all.
Moreover, the constitutionally provided "separation of powers" makes no difference in this regard. Two or even three wrongs do not make a right. To the contrary, they lead to the proliferation, accumulation, reinforcement, and aggravation of error. ...
Very Stupid comment!
That is a US Military Problem and THEY have to obligation to fix it NOT any 'volunteers'....
Now your wax JAJAesque with your apples & oranges delusional thinking.
That is a US Military Problem and THEY have to obligation to fix it NOT any 'volunteers'....
No, it doesn't act as a democracy. In a democratic legislature the members are elected by the people. The members of the UN General Assembly are overwhelmingly appointed by dictators. That is not democracy.
I note that at the Communist Party of China's central committee "decisions are made in a democratic way", with voting to elect leaders, voting on policies and platforms, and so forth, but nobody in their right mind would call China a democracy precisely because the committee members are unelected, just like the members of the UN General Assembly are overwhelmingly unelected.
You need a basic civics lesson on what "democracy" is.
So much for your Patriotism.
Maybe those troops should vent the frustration on you for doing everything to undermine them, except the following,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
The US Military may have the obligation but thanks to guys like you who lobby defense cut and voluntary disarmament, they simply cut those funding on PTSD or whatever support services and outsource them to civilian organizations. Not going to be surprised that will become a norm going forward.
You really are a jackarse with your delusional 'stream of unconsciousness logic'!
Are you sure you are not related to JAJA???
You seem to have his genes....
Wrong again, the troops will be much appreciated to your patriotic duty when you channel your energy to confront WBC like your "Rabbi" Michael.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4
No, you cannot do it. Why?
