Thread: November 7th

Blue Meanie, you danced all around my major question, but never quite hit it. I thought my post very clearly indicated what I am trying to understand. I will ask it in one sentence this time instead of several...

How can the people have voices without votes?

I don't see how that is possible, so it seems that any kind of government where people don't would be totalitarianism. If you disagree, please explain how it is possible to have a government that is not completely totalitarian where the people don't vote. Of course there can be votes and totalitarianism, as in the case of the Hussein regime, where Hussein got 100% of the votes (Hmmmmm...), but you can't have an absence of totalitarianism without votes. How can the people have voices without votes?

I know you recanted on your point that you don't believe in voting, so if you do believe in voting in non-demoratic systems, then tell me. My question in the above paragraph is there in case you think it is possible to have non-voting without totalitiarianism. I don't see how it is possible. Do you?

And my subordinate question:

What kind of government(s) do you believe in? If your philosphy on that is too culture specific, then pick an area and answer it in regard to that area, or culture or country or whatever. I am trying to get at least some spec of an incling about what kind of government or governments you think have any kind of legitimacy, but you have dodged the very simple question the past six times I have asked it. Please don't give me this "irrelevant" stuff. I am just asking you for your answer, not cross-examining you in a murder trial or suggesting that your answer has some major significance or that the rest of the world wants to know what you think. You are not on trial or on a witness stand. You are just being asked a question on a discussion board by somebody you have told repeatedly that democracy "doesn't work". What kind of government(s) do you not blanketly say don't work?

While we're at it, what kind of government do you most want Iraq to end up having? I don't care how relevant or irrelevant the question is. I am curious. What kind of government do you most favor for the future of Iraq?

Originally Posted by Universal

Blue Meanie, you danced all around my major question, but never quite hit it. I thought my post very clearly indicated what I am trying to understand. I will ask it in one sentence this time instead of several...

How can the people have voices without votes?[/b]

Easy. There's a huge variety of ways. Influence, civil disobediance, etc.

A 'vote' does not give the people a direct voice in any decision making. It is at best an inderect and ineffective tool. And in a system where the "representative" government gets to define the basis on which it is elected, and the procedures by which votes "count", and then go on to totally ignore the promises made to the voter... this is a direct defiance of the Doctrine of the Mandate.

"Democratically" elected representative government is NOT democracy. Not even close to.

Originally Posted by Universal

I don't see how that is possible, so it seems that any kind of government where people don't would be totalitarianism. If you disagree, please explain how it is possible to have a government that is not completely totalitarian where the people don't vote. Of course there can be votes and totalitarianism, as in the case of the Hussein regime, where Hussein got 100% of the votes (Hmmmmm...), but you can't have an absence of totalitarianism without votes. How can the people have voices without votes?[/b]

Easy. For instance, take a monarchy in which a much hated leader is rebelled against, captured and executed. Or a small tribal society in which the society is governed by "meetings". There's a plethora of different ways to have non-totalitarian government that don't require a 'vote'. Indeed, there are plenty of different types of governmental systems which include 'votes', but the votes may differ in nature and importance.

I suggest you go look up "Totalitarian(ism)" in the dictionary. You seem to have an absurdly simple definition of "totalitarianism". It's not a term that can bandied about to apply to any system without votes - this is a simplistic and limited viewpoint.

Originally Posted by Universal

What kind of government(s) do you believe in? If your philosphy on that is too culture specific, then pick an area and answer it in regard to that area, or culture or country or whatever.[/b]

Again, I do not "believe" in any form of government, in the same way that I do not believe in objective morality. There is a difference between "believe", "support", and "acknowledge as suitable". I do not believe in, or support, ANY form of government.

However, I do acknowledge as appropriate some forms of government for some areas. For instance, in some parts of tribal africa, especially in smaller societies, a tribal/council/king type system is often appropriate.

Originally Posted by Universal

I am trying to get at least some spec of an incling about what kind of government or governments you think have any kind of legitimacy, but you have dodged the very simple question the past six times I have asked it.[/b]

By asking me "what type of government to you believe in or support" you presuppose that I DO believe in or support a type of government. I don't, so the question is inappropriate. A government is either works and is suitable for a society, or it doesn't, or somewhere in between. I do not support or believe in any one form of government.

Originally Posted by Universal

Please don't give me this "irrelevant" stuff.[/b]

If you've failed to comprehend the reasons for which the question is invalid as it applies to my thinking, then that is your problem, not mine. In effect, what you're asking is like saying:

"Did you beat your wife today or did you do it yesterday instead" and then complaining when I say I don't beat my wife. Do you see what I'm saying here?

Originally Posted by Universal

While we're at it, what kind of government do you most want Iraq to end up having? I don't care how relevant or irrelevant the question is. I am curious. What kind of government do you most favor for the future of Iraq?[/b]

I don't. Any. I do not favour any one system of government. I hiope that Iraq (without US "guidance") will develop for itself, over time and likely through sporadic conflict, a system of government which works for them. I do not know what that system is, but, whatever it is, the present "system" is laughably ineffective, weak, and doomed.

EDIT: Gah! Why aren't quotes working?!

Originally Posted by The

Easy. For instance, take a monarchy in which a much hated leader is rebelled against, captured and executed. Or a small tribal society in which the society is governed by "meetings". There's a plethora of different ways to have non-totalitarian government that don't require a 'vote'. Indeed, there are plenty of different types of governmental systems which include 'votes', but the votes may differ in nature and importance. [/b]

That does not answer much. I am talking about ways to run a government. If the leader gets killed, of course the people have a single moment in history where they have a voice. I think you know I am talking about FORMS of government. You can't run a government simply by killing the leader. That makes no decisions, except to have a dead leader. What would that be called? A homicidarchy? I am talking about how the people can actually have ongoing control, like in the democratic republic I live in. I am also not talking about tribes that have meetings. I am talking about national governments, like in the U.S., New Zealand, France, Canada, etc. We have been talking about countries this whole time, and you have said that "democracy doesn't work". And all you can give me about what does work in any situation are totalitarianism in small countries and tribes having meetings. So so far, the only kind of effective national government you have said works in any situation is totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by The

I suggest you go look up "Totalitarian(ism)" in the dictionary. You seem to have an absurdly simple definition of "totalitarianism". It's not a term that can bandied about to apply to any system without votes - this is a simplistic and limited viewpoint. [/b]

I didn't define it that way. I said that I don't see how a system of government (We have been talking about countries, not bands of a few families living together in the mud huts in the woods.) can exist in such a way that the people have a voice (not a one time voice by killing the leader) without voting. I never once asserted that it is impossible. I politely used terms like "it seems" and asked questions, as opposed to asserting what I believe to be facts. You have been simplistically and rudely suggesting that my questions were assertions. They were not. They were questions, and your answers have been very inadequate. I suggest you try harder to clear this up. How can a SYSTEM (not moment) of government be ultimately controlled by the people, as in a representative democracy, when the people don't vote? (Notice THIS TIME that that is a question, not an assertion. Try giving an actual answer this time.)

Originally Posted by The

Again, I do not "believe" in any form of government, in the same way that I do not believe in objective morality. There is a difference between "believe", "support", and "acknowledge as suitable". I do not believe in, or support, ANY form of government. [/b]

So you are an anarchist? Do you really have no answer for this beyond tribes and small totalitarian regimes? You said you believe in (as in "acknowledge as suitable") the systems of tribe meetings for tribes and totalitarianism in some small countries. What else? Is that the best you can give here?

Originally Posted by The

However, I do acknowledge as appropriate some forms of government for some areas. For instance, in some parts of tribal africa, especially in smaller societies, a tribal/council/king type system is often appropriate. [/b]

Jesus Christ, back to the damn tribes again. I am talking about countries. Perhaps try talking along the lines of the countries that are represented on this web site. What would be the most suitable government for Russia, for example? Maybe that will get you on track.

Originally Posted by The

By asking me "what type of government to you believe in or support" you presuppose that I DO believe in or support a type of government. I don't, so the question is inappropriate. A government is either works and is suitable for a society, or it doesn't, or somewhere in between. I do not support or believe in any one form of government. [/b]

You are dodging like a politician. You have expressed absolutely extreme opinion about what kind of government does not work. What does? Pick a country or type of national culture and tell me about it.

Originally Posted by The

If you've failed to comprehend the reasons for which the question is invalid as it applies to my thinking, then that is your problem, not mine. In effect, what you're asking is like saying:

"Did you beat your wife today or did you do it yesterday instead" and then complaining when I say I don't beat my wife. Do you see what I'm saying here? [/b]

Every time I drill somebody with a question they dodge like the plague because they know they don't have an answer they are willing to admit to having, they come at me with the wife beater analogy. My question is not analogous to it. The wife beater question implies that there is wife beating when there might not even be a marriage. You have stated types of government that you "acknowledge as suitable" and have royally gone off about how "democracy doesn't work". Either you are against government period outside of tribe meetings and totalitarian governments in certain small countries, or you are refusing to spit out what you "acknowledge as suitable" in the other instances. And by the way, a person who has never beaten his wife would correctly answer, "No," to the wife beater question. Then perhaps he could explain his answer, but, "No," is still correct even if he doesn't. Even the wife beater question is not unanswerable. So what is your answer to my question? And feel free to explain it. Are you against all types of governments other than tribal meetings and totalitarian governments in some small countries? Is that what is going on here?

Originally Posted by The

I don't. Any. I do not favour any one system of government. I hiope that Iraq (without US "guidance") will develop for itself, over time and likely through sporadic conflict, a system of government which works for them. I do not know what that system is, but, whatever it is, the present "system" is laughably ineffective, weak, and doomed. [/b]

Can you at least say that you want a government where the people have ultimate control, one where they can vote officials in and out? Or should they have some sort of homicidarchy? Should they divide up into a hundred thousand tribes and have meetings? What would you "acknowledge as suitable" in terms of their having a voice and, as you said you want them to be able to do, choose their own direction? They sure as Hell did not have that under the Hussein regime. No totalitarian system would allow that. Give a general description of what WOULD work in terms of their being able to choose their own direction.

Originally Posted by Universal

I said that I don't see how a system of government (We have been talking about countries, not bands of a few families living together in the mud huts in the woods.) can exist in such a way that the people have a voice (not a one time voice by killing the leader) without voting.[/b]

How is this "one time voice" significantly different from "representative" government, a system you seem to be advocating, in which the actual "voice" of the people is only given once every four years and has little to no effect on the actual policies or decisions made by the elected government?

If you think that in your system, the people have a voice, you're kidding yourself.

Originally Posted by Universal

You are dodging like a politician. You have expressed absolutely extreme opinion about what kind of government does not work. What does? Pick a country or type of national culture and tell me about it.[/b]

Already have. The tribal example. the reason I chose it was because it is simple, and relatively self-apparent. The reason I've avoided using more complex examples, you'll find below.

Originally Posted by Universal

Every time I drill somebody with a question they dodge like the plague because they know they don't have an answer they are willing to admit to having, they come at me with the wife beater analogy.[/b]

No. The reason I'm not answering is because it's a stupid question. I've already explained why above. I'm not dodging anything, I'm flat-out TELLING you I'm not going to answer a question such as "what governmental system to you believe in or support", because it presupposes a political mentality which I do not have.

Originally Posted by Universal

Are you against all types of governments other than tribal meetings and totalitarian governments in some small countries? Is that what is going on here?[/b]

No.





My point, my CRUCIAL POINT that you seem to be missing, is that it is not for me, or you, or America, to decide what form of government is apporpriate for a country in political flux. This is something America seems not to be able to grasp. Through a long and sometimes bloody process of political development, a culture or coutnry should be left alone to develop its own political culture and governmental system.

It is not up to ME, or YOU, or AMERICA to decide what form of government we "believe in", "support", or "is appropriate" for that country, and it's CERTAINLY not our business to decide a nation's future. That should be left for the nation in question.