Pinochet or Allende? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:22:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Pinochet or Allende? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: ?
#1
Pinochet
 
#2
Allende
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 101

Author Topic: Pinochet or Allende?  (Read 3011 times)
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


« on: July 10, 2019, 02:42:14 AM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,080
United States


« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2019, 12:10:06 PM »

I can never understand why people stress "The DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende" as a point in Allende's favor when discussing these two, as if state-sponsored theft is suddenly A-OK if a 50.1% majority says it is.
What a poor state of existence the tax evaders, landlords, wage thievers, and pedophile papists would have been through...

Of course, as someone who has previously decried democracy, this type of support would have been expected.

I only oppose democracy because I believe that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for others, and because I don't agree with majority rule or doctrines of false equality.

Libertarianism and individualism already do this by giving people the agency to screw over others, which in turn limits their own options, even though they did nothing except be born in the wrong place.

What you're talking about is creating obstacles for others, which is a bit different. A private individual can make another individual's life difficult, but he doesn't have the monopoly on force and sole legal legitimacy that the state does. So while your boss can fire you, he can't force you to sell your house for less than it's worth so that he can bulldoze it and put in a freeway. I think there's a worthy distinction to be made there.

Why? The end result is still the same if there's no means to account for these things, because by limiting the power of the state too much, you're just transferring that legal power and legitimacy over to individuals or worse, a rent-seeking private entity that cannot even be held accountable to anything but profit. Even church-with-state regimes have to answer to a creed, however nominally it may be, and that creed is much less changing than profits.

And that's under the assumption that these higher-ups operate on that bottom line, instead of just affording what they want to afford.

And while yeah, being fired doesn't necessarily equate to selling your house, just exactly what other choices are there if that's the only money left and you got fired because you breathed wrong? So then, what choice do you have but to f*(late and suck-out any sense of dignity or propriety just to not risk such a fate?


Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 14 queries.