40 replies to this topic

[Blodo]

My Moderate ideology basically means"compromise on most things", not "do bnothing". Anyone who bewlieves in a lazy Moderate ideology is really really dumb.

You can't have comprimise on everything, especially in politics. All actions have a shade of left or right. Doing nothing is the perfect centre.

[Ash]

He's got you there, Pyth.


There's no left-wing in this country anymore, and there isn't much of one in America, either, if any at all. Nonetheless, from the options available, who do you choose? Right-wing or more right-wing? It is true, at the moment, that it doesn't matter worth a shit who you elect; the outcome is the same. We do not live in a a society where democracy exists. We exist in a society with a form of government called 'Promisocracy'. The leaders promise to do things, the one with the most extravagant boast about how they will benefit you gets in, and then life continues as if nothing had ever happened, perhaps with the odd removal of a civil liberty here or there. I can't remember a single beneficial thing I've seen Labour do in my intellectual memory (being seven years old when Labour were elected, I wouldn't notice, but say in the last five years). They haven't done half of the things they have promised to do, and have done a ton of things nobody wanted them to do. Aren't governments supposed to listen to the people, rather than saying: "Father knows best"?

Moderates, technically, would simply not be far-left or far-right, and would occasionally make decisions opposite of their standpoint.

I personally believe that referendums should be called over important decisions, such as a currency change, a war, health service/education reforms etc.

[Cossack]

I agree, we need a more direct democracy

[duke_Qa]

direct democracy wouldnt really make it any better. if it was easier for people to affect the politics, populists would easily get their way all the time. and it would be easier for the elite to buy people's opinion through the media, which they already own most of so that is no news.

the question is naturally how much you want to change to make it work better, but one should know that the easiest ways to change things is through dictatorship. the more speed we want to change things in, the more we leave our own rights to some elite guy to wield as if it was his own.

[Comrade Kal]

direct democracy wouldnt really make it any better. if it was easier for people to affect the politics, populists would easily get their way all the time.

You mean politicians that do what people want? Good heavens, we must keep those evil people out of power!

[duke_Qa]

the problem is not the good people, but the ignorant people. i've got nothing against a more direct democracy if you can make sure that the people are perfectly aware of what they are doing.

Its kinda like you get this letter from nigeria about some guy who just lost his grandfather and he needs to put his inherited money in your account.

Or if someone comes along and say that they got this great game that you can make alot of money on if you manage to get alot of your friends to join below you, which then again will make alot of money for you.

most of us on these forums would reckognize this for what it is, but why then do they keep on popping up all over the world? because SOMEONE IS EASILY FOOLED!

one fine example: patriot act, why did that one get through? because people were shellshocked about the fact that someone flew a pair of planes into some skyskrapers. it was the best way for the government to get some direct democracy that fit their ideology through. if it became easier for people to change things, don't you think that the elite would need less scaring situations to change something that suits themselves and not the people?

[Hostile]

Same reason why direct democracy doesn't work. People, once scared or passionate, may vote in silly things based on emotion and not logic.

HAving a legislature allows some people to say "hold on" and not vote in something that would have a dire serious consequence just cause some people got inspired or scared or something.

Example: "Preliminary findings are that A nation was the culprit behind that bombings today. Now Vote Bomb the fuckers or not? 74% of the people chose to bomb the fuckers.

Not realising nation B actually set up nation A. So direct democracy is not possible because believe it or not, the individual is smart, the group is stupid.

[Comrade Kal]

Which is why dictators are so level-headed.

[Pyth]

Paradox, I know that... but I'm not perfectly centrist. I'm right leaning, but i'm not really a capitalist. I'd say I'm only a BIT away from perfect center.

[Blodo]

You mean you're only a bit away from establishing the state of mind, that doing nothing is everything? As I said, the perfect centre is being idle. When you think that the elite should have more power, you go right. When you think that the people should have more power, you go left. There is no in-between. You can't be centrist and claim that you want to change anything, get over it.

[duke_Qa]

personally i believe that you can't use the left vs right as examples of who wants to change things.i would say either you are radical or you are conservative. you might be a conservative left wing if you are in a socialist country where things have been ruled by socialists for a while. you might be a radical liberal in any country where some laws are starting to affect its citizens religion and you want to abolish it. you can't say legalising drugs is left wing or right wing policy, because you find people against it on both sides.

anyway, politics ain't twodimensional, that much people should know. if anything theres practically a extra dimension for every political angle that distinguises itself from others. so saying that moderate politics won't get anything done is not going to be true.

[Tom]

Left and right doesn't exist, its another illusion which the elite use to rule people. You'll get communist elites or capitalist elites either way, so you can't assume either. I'd say the real difference is not left vs right its authoritarianism vs libertarianism. Go Libertarian you believe people should have the responsibilities and power, go authoritatian you believe the state (or elite) should have it.

[Pyth]

Go Moderate but very slightly leaning on Authotorian!

[Athgar]

I choose Theocracy...

[Blodo]

Left and right doesn't exist, its another illusion which the elite use to rule people. You'll get communist elites or capitalist elites either way, so you can't assume either. I'd say the real difference is not left vs right its authoritarianism vs libertarianism. Go Libertarian you believe people should have the responsibilities and power, go authoritatian you believe the state (or elite) should have it.

Dude. Authoritarianism = Right. Libertarianism = Left. Yes, Stalin was right-wing.

[Cossack]

You must also consider economic left and right. You can be an economic leftist whilst still being authoritarian, can't you?

[Blodo]

I'm was trying to make a point. Anyways this didn't involve economic policies, hence my statement.

[Drewry]

I agree, we need a more direct democracy

That is what Druvianism is, a direct democracy.

Everytime Direct Democracy is brought up for a possible system, someone always says it cannot work because of the 'ignorant people'. This has happened in nearly every case of history. How can you say direct democracy cannot work, if you do not let it work. That is like saying it is impossible to lift off the ground without ever once trying to jump.

I think that every one of you would want a Druvian form of government. The problem is you do not understand the system behind it. You see it as something completely different, and your judgement is clouded by your constant denial of the plausibility.

If you feel as though I do, and you wish a more free, corrupt-free government, one truely ruled by the people and not the corporate elite, then you should support Druvianism. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing," it is time we assemble as a people and do somethign about the oppression that so frequently makes its way into our lives. You do not have to agree with everything about the Druvianism movement, but all you have to agree with is one thing - freedom. If you want to live in a more free society, then do something and support the movement.

[Blodo]

According to what I read sometime ago about your type of government - it's a caste system mixed with direct democracy. The sheer idea of the caste system makes it obsolete, at least to me, since all people are equal - and should be treated as such.

[Drewry]

Then what you read was incorrect. There is no caste system involved.