They are treated like enemies that exist in opposition to everything you believe to be moral, and should be crushed by any means necessary. — Eric Wintjen
Of course. As if a Democratic win would heal the differences in the US and bring people together. Yes, the Trump supporters will wake up that they have been wrong, the other side right and that their President is totally inept and they should have earlier voted for Hillary.Hopefully next week will see a turning of the tide. — Wayfarer
The ideal outcome is that only those who are willing to take on significant personal responsibility and make sacrifices in order to serve the public should be allowed to impose their will on the public, and anyone who is willing to take on this responsibility is given the opportunity. — Eric Wintjen
I am suggesting limited government, not a nonexistent one. — Eric Wintjen
When rights are given at birth what reason is there for people to believe that they should accept any responsibility? — Eric Wintjen
We vote on a law -> The law is accepted by government — Eric Wintjen
Whenever we vote in a democracy, we are using force, we vote because we want to impose our will on society, and with our will embraced by government, we want to enforce our will through threat of violence. — Eric Wintjen
The important part is that this system have a strong, military-style hierarchy within it that demands a high level of responsibility from every member. — Eric Wintjen
You should ask this of those men who drafted those "founding documents" you refer to, one of which claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain "unalienable rights." — Ciceronianus the White
Well, no, we don't. Except in the rare cases where proposed legislation is subjected to referendum (I know California likes to do this sort of thing), we vote for people who, when elected, adopt laws. That's fundamental to the form of represented government those men who drafted those "founding documents" created. — Ciceronianus the White
I doubt most voters are the megalomaniacs you think them to be. Anyone who votes and thinks that by doing so they are imposing their will on society is delusional. The same may be said regarding anyone who votes intending to do violence if the candidate they vote for is not elected. It strikes me that if what you claim is true, we would have experienced a great deal more violence than we have. There've been quite a few disappointed voters in our history. I personally will not run amuck if I vote for someone who's not elected. — Ciceronianus the White
The responsibility to follow orders, yes.
If what we hear is true, historically most of us have chosen not to vote in most cases. So, most of us have chosen not to "impose our will" on society. I doubt your fear that too many people are allowed to vote is justified, but clearly you must provide the justification if there is any. — Ciceronianus the White
Well, not really. You're suggesting a government that imposes strict conditions on who gets to participate in the political process. May be a good idea, but not really a libertarian idea. — Jake
I'm not so sure about that. People are quite the same in the end. The average Westerner is living a quite similar life in Europe or in the US, but what is debated (and how it's debated) differs.The problem is not with the system, but with the people. However, the system provides a nice excuse for the people to keep blaming each other for what's wrong, instead of facing their near-total ignorance and the insatiable materialism that has crept into their souls. — Tzeentch
I'll give an example. Here in Finland politicians don't do ad hominem attacks as in the US and the discourse isn't as heated as is there. Parties have to form coalition governments, hence they have to be in speaking terms. The public discourse mimics this. Something like Pizzagate conspiracies would be out of the question. Even the political fringes don't have that kind of rhetoric. Looking at the discourse in the social media, opinion columns and etc. the tone are rather "civil".I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say, but one can heatedly debate politics and still be completely ignorant. In fact, generally the more heated the debate, the more ignorant its participants. Maybe I didn't understand your message. — Tzeentch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.