From: | "John Baker" <bakerjohnj(at)hotmail.com> |
---|---|
Date: | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:45:05 -0400 |
Subject: | Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2) |
From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Reply-To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
CC: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net, "John Baker" <bakerjohnj(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [cicdd] Rossin to Baker (2/2)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:20:14 +0200
At 13:56 -0400 17-06-2005, John Baker wrote:
I am careful with the 'fascist' label. It is not a positive one and
therefore I believe it counteracts our fundamental argument that
everyone benefits under DD.
Except those who do not abdicate to their fundamental right to rule
over the people. And those who want to to judge which the benefit
for the people has to be
The way I look at it is that DD is a form of fascism. The might
of the majority makes right. When the majority are obstructed
fascism suffers as does capitalism.
Please explain. The way I look at that, is that it this the fascist
who wants the voice of the majority not to be heard, eg. in the
form of I&R up to DD.
You can try to convince them (the fascist) that they suffer when
their wish (to oppress the majority) is not successful.
I realize this sound contradictory to PC sentiments but if you
read literature such as Mein Kampf you will see how fascist
arguments fit the idea of the right of the majority to impose
themselves on the minority. Only when this right is abridged
does fascism become an argument for oppression and intolerance
for those it defines as impeding this right.
The same argument applies for authoritarianism. Authority is
just when it is democratically assigned. Any other political
situation demands authority be implemented by brute force.
This not an ideal. It simply is a statement of fact.
The same argument applies for consent-building. Very simply,
the fascist do systematically resort to the opinion-making and
consent-manufacturing P.R. technologies to prevent their own
elitist arguments from being dismissed by the people's 50%+1
majority eventually.
Therefore DD accomadates both sides of the political spectrum.
Those who see the danger in absolute power can be comforted
by the fact that power is wielded by a DD imposed elite.
DD does not apply to imposing elites that easy, IMHO. Unless
you managed to build the people's consent to decide accordingly.
Those who desire authority and order can also be comforted byThen, why do you antagonize my arguments? After all, what I am
a political system which is respected by the majority.
There is ZERO need to antagonize anyone in the argument
for DD. DD is a WIN WIN situation for everyone. Both liberal
and conservatives, the haves and the have-nots are empowered
by DD. If we make the DD argument this way, it becomes
unimpeachable. The only argument left against it is a pure distrust
of humanity in general which can be easily overcome by positivity.
ie the lack of hate mongering.
looking for, it is discussing the parenting feedback in order to spot
the best model that may train children -- future democrats -- towards
the utmost of flexibility and tolerance of opposite opinions, instead of
fundamental rigidity towards ZEROing any argument that may appear
antithetical to your thesis.