2020 US General Election

[HCZ_Reborn]

The point is in life that we do defer things to others even that which only affects us on an individual basis.

We have lawyers and accountants who make recommendations based on their expertise. We do operation to a degree of collectivisation even at the macro level…from neighbourhood watch schemes to work based lottery syndicates.

For me the main objection I can see is when the state demands it takes precedence over the commitment to self, to family etc.

For example the DPRK, I have no idea how true this is but a woman who’s house was on fire managed to save her children from the fire but was considered an enemy of the state because she had not put the effort into saving the portraits of the supreme leader (Kim Il Sung) and the dear leader (Kim Jong Il)

She was put in prison and was denied the chance to work to provide medicine for her badly injured children. What happened to them I’m not sure

For me this is a bug of the system of state, for someone like NQ this is a feature. That the state by its very existence is evil and oppressive and seeks to dilute the innate goodness in people and brainwash us into admiration towards the criminals who preside over us.

My contention has always been the James Madison approach - If men were Angels there would be no need of government but also must never lose sight of the additional clause “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”

We do absolutely need to guard against what control we relinquish over our lives

[Niall_Quinn]

Yes. Up to a point.
Because we live in a society, which means the things I do can affect other people.
So a society needs rules.

I've been through this. An elected Government may not be a good way of defining those rules, but it's probably the least bad way. It's the system basically every country has arrived at. Other systems such as dictatorship or a king are worse. And consensus isn't possible in a large enough population.
I think our version of it is particularly poor - which is what HCZ and myself are talking about.

Holy fucking hell. THEN SET THE RULES. YOU live in a society. How can YOU best serve it? And WHO is the best person to decide that?

Why do you need some cunt who has already compromised himself a thousand times just to achieve the power he wields over you to decide the rules by which YOU will engage with society? Explain please, because that's just fucking mental.

Are you going to say - well then BAD people will do shit because there are no rules? So you "elect" (LOL) BAD people to make the rules? Isn't that just allowing them to cut to the chase without even working? At least a highwayman has to learn to ride a horse. With these politicians, who are all a bunch of fags by the look of it, who would collapse if they had to carry the weight of direct confrontation, you instead bend over and beg, RULE ME! Tell me the RULES!

Holy fucking hell - get over here. I want to fuck you up the arse and have you hand over all your money and then THANK ME!

Good deal? PM for address and times.

[Niall_Quinn]

The point is in life that we do defer things to others even that which only affects us on an individual basis.

We have lawyers and accountants who make recommendations based on their expertise. We do operation to a degree of collectivisation even at the macro level…from neighbourhood watch schemes to work based lottery syndicates.

For me the main objection I can see is when the state demands it takes precedence over the commitment to self, to family etc.

For example the DPRK, I have no idea how true this is but a woman who’s house was on fire managed to save her children from the fire but was considered an enemy of the state because she had not put the effort into saving the portraits of the supreme leader (Kim Il Sung) and the dear leader (Kim Jong Il)

She was put in prison and was denied the chance to work to provide medicine for her badly injured children. What happened to them I’m not sure

For me this is a bug of the system of state, for someone like NQ this is a feature. That the state by its very existence is evil and oppressive and seeks to dilute the innate goodness in people and brainwash us into admiration towards the criminals who preside over us.

My contention has always been the James Madison approach - If men were Angels there would be no need of government but also must never lose sight of the additional clause “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”

We do absolutely need to guard against what control we relinquish over our lives

Yeah, but Madison was smart. He knew, don't give any one cunt all the power, make them fight each other and maybe they won't have enough time to fuck over the people. Unfortunately he underestimated their sheer tenacity to be the ultimate evil. Jeez, I could do it. That's a life I wouldn't mind. A gun and good intentions, and let the chips fall. The way humans were and still are today, if they could get their balls out of their purses. It's amazing how so many people refuse to accept just how fragile their society is and just how quickly their wonderful government will abandon them the second the government itself needs to cover its own arse. All one giant illusion, which stops the rest of us from being trained to encounter life as it really is. We've "progressed" nowhere, because 200, 300, 500 years is a very, very short timespan in the grand scheme of things. And no, don't even get me started on those climate alarmist loons. I'm working hard right now to protect me and my family from mobs, because PC Plod ain't going to do it - shocking as that may seem (and expensive given the tax bill). That's ALL you should be doing to because that's the whole horizon. No other view even gets a glimpse.

[Niall_Quinn]

The, perhaps, unprecedented lunatic of our times, Anthony "Blinken" Idiot, has informed us Ukraine will become part of NATO - for some reason. Which means, if he gets his way, we have until then to get out shit in order. Because if that happens then, well... Remember that question - if you could have killed Hitler before he became what he became? And that other question, will somebody rid us of this troublesome priest? It's so difficult to try to trace the fleeting thought processes of people like Blinken. Ultimately it all comes down to them being the richest dudes in the apocalypse. You know, with currency that long since ceased working. So even if you can detect their thought processes, it still leads you to a meaningless result.

[Letters]

Are you going to say - well then BAD people will do shit because there are no rules? So you "elect" (LOL) BAD people to make the rules?

I'm going to say what I keep saying - you need to define the rules somehow.
Your suggestion seems to be either there are none or we all make up our own rules.
Neither of these suggestions make any sense. How does a society function if there are no rules? If we all make our own ones up then that's just chaos. If your contention is that a society can function without rules or we can all make up our own rules then fine, end of discussion. Agree to disagree.

If you can agree that a society needs rules then how to we make them? The options I see are:

a) Consensus - which is basically impossible in a society of any size, there used to be big disagreements at my old church and there were only about 30 of us.
b) A king or dictator - I don't actually mind this idea IF they're benevolent and sensible, but they tend not to be.
c) Some form of government - which is the solution pretty much every country has arrived at.

I'm open to other suggestions, unless they're "you don't need rules" or "we all make up our own ones". Although if you want to explain how you think that will work in practice then fine, but I can't see it.

Your deep distrust of authority leads you to characterise this as we're electing "BAD" people to make the rules. But obviously that isn't how it's supposed to work. And most of them aren't actually bad people. Incompetent, sure. Self-serving. Corrupt. I can agree with those things. The way we elect a government is lamentably poor, and there should definitely be more consequence for politicians who are inept or corrupt. I actually think most of them get in to it for the right reasons, but it does seem as they climb the political tree they become more corrupt. As I said, there should be more consequence for that. But they're not actually evil, they're not trying to oppress us - we've covered ad nauseum the hysterical predictions which your belief that they are led you to.

you instead bend over and beg, RULE ME! Tell me the RULES!

Incorrect. I simply recognise that there need to be some rules and understand that there's no perfect way of defining them.
I believe a government is the least bad way of doing it.
Our version of it is poor but I don't actually know how to change that.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Is the only reason you think a King or Dictator would be bad, the obvious reason that they probably won’t be benign ?

You could be to a degree a benevolent King in the Middle Ages because the divine right of Kings was unquestioned so with the exception of potential usurpers you’re not having to secure your power base.

But it’s kind of beside the point, what gives this individual authority over me?

[Letters]

Is the only reason you think a King or Dictator would be bad, the obvious reason that they probably won’t be benign ?

You could be to a degree a benevolent King in the Middle Ages because the divine right of Kings was unquestioned so with the exception of potential usurpers you’re not having to secure your power base.

But it’s kind of beside the point, what gives this individual authority over me?

I think in the context of a small organisation it can work quite well.
My church is effectively a benevolent dictatorship, the bloke who runs it was appointed by the dude who started it. The other members of the leadership team are appointed and when they need a new member they appoint them. No-one is voted for.
But we're a small church and it works quite well. They have regular meetings with us to update us on plans, they canvas opinion before making big changes. Overall it works fine. And I guess it worked OK in the middle ages when society was pretty simple and therefore the rules didn't have to be that complicated.
Now I guess it doesn't really work. Things are too complex for one person to understand it all and make the rules. Like how as we learn more about the body there are more specialisms in medicine.
I was sort of thinking of an elected dictator, which is a bit of an oxymoron. So that's where the authority would come from. But someone sensible who could be trusted to make sensible decisions. I vote Stephen Fry, he's generally right about stuff. Or me

[HCZ_Reborn]

I think in the context of a small organisation it can work quite well.
My church is effectively a benevolent dictatorship, the bloke who runs it was appointed by the dude who started it. The other members of the leadership team are appointed and when they need a new member they appoint them. No-one is voted for.
But we're a small church and it works quite well. They have regular meetings with us to update us on plans, they canvas opinion before making big changes. Overall it works fine. And I guess it worked OK in the middle ages when society was pretty simple and therefore the rules didn't have to be that complicated.
Now I guess it doesn't really work. Things are too complex for one person to understand it all and make the rules. Like how as we learn more about the body there are more specialisms in medicine.
I was sort of thinking of an elected dictator, which is a bit of an oxymoron. So that's where the authority would come from. But someone sensible who could be trusted to make sensible decisions. I vote Stephen Fry, he's generally right about stuff. Or me

I would assume even in a small organisation that a) this autocrat isn’t given free rein to arbitrarily change things without consultation and b) if they were they would be able to be replaced quite easily.

And given your church example I can see this is the case. So isn’t really a dictator by definition

Even in the Middle Ages, a wise ruler had to keep the nobles onside. If you look at any history, those who rule unwisely tend to be killed off or at the very least deposed.

No one wanted Democracy because no one really knew what it was as the majority of people couldn’t read or write or have much knowledge of what was going on outside of their own community.

Take the church for example, it wasn’t until the 15th century that the Bible was translated from Latin. So even if you could read and write English you’d have no idea what was contained in the Bible so you were dependant on the Priest (who was scholarly and would know Latin) to tell you

Life was nasty, brutish and short - you died from disease, starvation or war

[Letters]

And given your church example I can see this is the case. So isn’t really a dictator by definition

I guess I'm misusing the word.
I just meant have a person to make the rules rather than all the structures of government we have now.
Wouldn't work in practice, not in a modern and complex society.
But if you get the right sensible person and it works pretty well in the context of a small organisation or society.

Like GW, for example, where I am beloved by all


Shut yer faces

[HCZ_Reborn]

I guess I'm misusing the word.
I just meant have a person to make the rules rather than all the structures of government we have now.
Wouldn't work in practice, not in a modern and complex society.
But if you get the right sensible person and it works pretty well in the context of a small organisation or society.

Like GW, for example, where I am beloved by all


Shut yer faces

I see this is where you’ve got the benevolent dictator thing from

Personally I couldn’t see any point

If you’re going to be a dictator you might as well be as cruel, spiteful and sociopathic as possible

Saddam’s Baath party conference in 1979 is the Gold standard in that.


Torture and terrorise a man so much that he will admit on stage to being complicit in a plot against you, then get him to read out a list of his co conspirators who just so happen to be in the audience. And as each name is read everyone in the audience terrified their name will be read out next (they know there was no actual plot against Saddam) they prostrate themselves crying out “Long Live Saddam, down with the plotters”. Whilst those whose names are read out, are led outside.

Not just that but those in the audience whose names are not read out, are given guns and told to execute those who have been taken outside. Well most of them, a few are spared and put on watch.


It’s a master stroke in psychological terror, violence and forcing people to be accomplice to your brutality