Types of Government

[Gmart]

This is theory, but this video goes through the different types of government very clearly.

The point about the Left and the Right at the beginning is spot on!! The division is about Total Government and No Government, and we could add Theocracy into the former.

It would seem that the UK has a democratic oligarchy as without a written constitution we are bereft of the rights which cannot be taken away from us. No wonder we are so stressed! Still we have a law system so maybe we are a form of republic but without the constitution?

 

[butchersapron]

You're very confused aren't you? Yes, fascism is far left and so on. And yes, republic simply means 'rule by law'. Bloody hell. And you think this confusion is clarity!

The discussion of anarchy is amazing

 

[Cid]

That was fucking terrible.

 

[Santino]

Our constitution isn't unwritten. It's just written in more than one place.

 

[Blagsta]

This is theory, but this video goes through the different types of government very clearly.

The point about the Left and the Right at the beginning is spot on!! The division is about Total Government and No Government, and we could add Theocracy into the former.

It would seem that the UK has a democratic oligarchy as without a written constitution we are bereft of the rights which cannot be taken away from us. No wonder we are so stressed! Still we have a law system so maybe we are a form of republic but without the constitution?

don't you ever learn?

 

[Gmart]

don't you ever learn?

Nor will I ever... Using logic to prick your bubble of prejudices

If it was 'rubbish' then perhaps you would like to correct it coz I notice that none of you seem able...

 

[Blagsta]

Nor will I ever... Using logic to prick your bubble of prejudices

If it was 'rubbish' then perhaps you would like to correct it coz I notice that none of you seem able...

You want me to take seriously a video which argues that fascism is left wing?

Read some history books (basic A level texts will suffice), then get back to us eh?

 

[Gmart]

You want me to take seriously a video which argues that fascism is left wing?

So you didn't get the point it was making then? Weren't able to concentrate that long? It seemed quite clear... The scale is more precisely between the authoritarian forces which want more government control, and those who want less and less government.

The quote by the Greeks was good too. I think it was Hobbes who pointed out that without government the Rich take advantage of the poor, in a 'nasty, brutish and short' world.

I suggest you actually watch it constructively...

 

[Blagsta]

...which is exactly why you need to read a little bit more!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

So you didn't get the point it was making then? Weren't able to concentrate that long? It seemed quite clear... The scale is more precisely between the authoritarian forces which want more government control, and those who want less and less government.

And conveniently enough they immediately call the authoritarian side "left" rather than, say, make up a new term. I wonder what the motive there could be?

It's not a video about types of government at all really, it's a piece about how a particular "libertarian" interpretation of the US constitution is better than everything else ever.

 

[Gmart]

...which is exactly why you need to read a little bit more!

I love the assumption you have that I haven't read as much as you. I would suggest that I am amply qualified to comment, as well you know...

Now get on with it - comment or shut up...

How about you take the text of the Greek quote and describe why you feel that it is rubbish...

Do you want me to quote it to you, or did you get that far?

 

[Gmart]

And conveniently enough they immediately call the authoritarian side "left" rather than, say, make up a new term. I wonder what the motive there could be?

It's not a video about types of government at all really, it's a piece about how a particular "libertarian" interpretation of the US constitution is better than everything else ever.

FFS it could just as easily have been a scale going the other way, if our culture was one which tended to go from right to left.

You lot try so hard to diss things you don't want to think about that you end up making comments like these...

One wonders why you are so reluctant to put forward you views and how they differ. Fear of having your well-thought out agendas destroyed?

 

[butchersapron]

You don't know how to read a text of any sort gm. Your naivity is astonishing.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

FFS it could just as easily have been a scale going the other way, if our culture was one which tended to go from right to left.

yeah, which would then make no difference at all

if we called anarchism "oligarchy", they could just as easily have been talking about oligarchies lol

You lot try so hard to diss things you don't want to think about that you end up making comments like these...

One wonders why you are so reluctant to put forward you views and how they differ. Fear of having your well-thought out agendas destroyed?

You must be joking. It's the same exact thing I've been hearing from US "libertarians" for as long as I can remember. Oh, left and right isn't important, let's redefine things, but hey let's call all the bad stuff "left", because we like the people who call themselves "right" in the US.

And the whole "constitution as holy writ" part too. I can vaguely see why some people in the US go for that but why anyone outside of the US does, christ knows.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

wait, what am I doing?

 

[Gmart]

wait, what am I doing?

Seeing a conspiracy where there is none, and then when confronted with a lack of evidence taking a step of faith in the conspiracy? (Otherwise you'd have to admit that it's far-fetched)

 

[elbows]

The point about the Left and the Right at the beginning is spot on!! The division is about Total Government and No Government, and we could add Theocracy into the former.

This sort of garbage is the reason I will defend the political compass when it is mentioned on these forums. Its not perfect, but its better than this grotesquely distorted view.

Authoritarian governments & beliefs do not all agree, there are large differences between them, at least in terms of economic policy.

Likewise people who think authoritarianism, big government and central control are bad, are not all on the same page about what we should have instead.

These differences are the economic meat, the left-right stuff. This is not the same as how authoritarian a regime is.

I am deeply suspicious of those who seek to confuse and blur these important differences. Why do some on the right seek to pretend that all authoritarianism is left-wing? It seems to be so that they can claim the right as the exclusive ground where freedom may grow. It may well be possible for many to be fooled, if they think the only form of left-wing thinking involves large powerful central planning & control, and then reverse that assumption so that all large powerful central planning & control = left wing. Thats how you end up with the idea that hitler was a socialist, a view that seems to be popular in the Austrian school of belief. Well I poo poo this because the struggle between communism and fascism was not in-fighting on the left, it was a clash of 2 authoritarian systems which had very different economic beliefs, one on the left and one on the right. If your obsession is only with how authoritarian and brutal a regime is then sure it may be possible to miss subtle details such as who owns the companies, but thats where much of the political reality lurks, in the detail of systems of economy and ownership.

The real test of these beliefs is whether if push came to shove, these right wingers would rather have a bit of authoritarianism with right-wing economic agenda, than less authoritarianism but some left-wing economics. Then we would see whether their support for non-authoritarian systems is really that strong, or if right-wing policies actually matter to them far more than they are letting on. Pretending that the non-authoritarian left does not exist, even in theory, gives some hint as to where their priorities actually lie.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Seeing a conspiracy where there is none, and then when confronted with a lack of evidence taking a step of faith in the conspiracy? (Otherwise you'd have to admit that it's far-fetched)

no, thinking that there is any point in my posting on any of your threads given that you never care about the replies or even your source material, that's what I'm doing

*slaps self*

 

[elbows]

Alos if there were no real left-right disagreements over how we organise, own etc, then there would be no need for authoritarian behaviour, man would not have the justification to control others, because there would be no competing ideology that people must be kept away from.

Likewise the dreams of the libertarian right could only be achieved if the free people, under no control, behaved how the libertarians expect they would. Once they realise many people were not behaving in quite the way they expected, for example having doubts about the merits of private property, well thats where authoritarianism is born. This happens on the left to. When the ideology fails to be born out in human behaviour, some external force can be blamed that is somehow corrupting the natural way people should be behaving, and so they must stand strong against this = more authoritarianism.

 

[butchersapron]

Just watched this again, just as funny 2nd time around. Saying bonkers-hysterical things in a non-hysterical voice doesn't make them any less bonkers. And it's just plain stupid as well. As elbows points out, you don't remedy the deficiencies of a simplistic model by keeping the same model and just changing the terms. It remains just as simplistic but without even the justification of historical use and development.

 

[articul8]

Notice, how Ronnie Reagan is in the "moderates" group
Amazing also how close 21st C USA is to their (mis)definition of anarchy!

Communism came to Russia because anarchists begged for oligarchy (It's one theory I suppose...)

Is a "totally governed society" even possible?

 

[Barking_Mad]

wait, what am I doing?

You're arguing with a fool. You should never argue with a fool as first they drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience.

 

[frogwoman]

It also depends what *kind* of authoritarianism there is.

 

[butchersapron]

What's this tags thing?

 

[Belushi]

What's this tags thing?

Seems to have appeared this morning

 

[Crispy]

for labelling threads - makes for better search and grouping of similar topics

 

[Gmart]

Authoritarian governments & beliefs do not all agree, there are large differences between them, at least in terms of economic policy.

Sure yet they all share the principle of one set of people telling another set of people how to live, because they either don't consider their freedoms as important (cue dubious thinker prover story), or worse they consider them too stupid and therefore in need of control.

Likewise people who think authoritarianism, big government and central control are bad, are not all on the same page about what we should have instead.

So they don't all agree on much else - thank goodness!!

Why do some on the right seek to pretend that all authoritarianism is left-wing?

I don't consider myself to the 'right', yet I do note that many talk about how people should be, according to them, and not about freedom and a proper progressive form of constitution.

It seems to be so that they can claim the right as the exclusive ground where freedom may grow.

Feel free to talk about freedom, but please don't bother using the Left-Right division unless you define it, the terms are too wishy-washy.

Generally it distracts from the key issue, which is freedom - which is where the link in the OP goes - entering into the debate as to how we do this thing called government once we have dismissed the fallacious Left-Right split and Anarchy etc.

I liked the way it described Anarchy as a vacuum into which the authoritarians naturally move. Though I disagreed with the assumption that the public would necessarily beg them for order. It would depend on whether people would be able to get food... and whether law and order would break out.

For example, if I stated that I see no reason to recycle, would you think any worse of me? Would you judge me? Do I have the Right to be different?

Maybe I am being unfair. Perhaps the 'non-authoritarian' left really does exist and they will start talking about the importance of freedom and rights forthwith, but from experience here I find them to be few and far between. People are much more concerned with finding fault in others and judging them to be wrong and thus in need of control...

It would seem to be ALL about the moral man being ignored and rolling up his sleeves to impose force.

 

[Blagsta]

What do you mean by "freedom"? Where do these "rights" come from?

 

[Cid]

I liked the way it described Anarchy as a vacuum into which the authoritarians naturally move. Though I disagreed with the assumption that the public would necessarily beg them for order. It would depend on whether people would be able to get food... and whether law and order would break out.

For example, if I stated that I see no reason to recycle, would you think any worse of me? Would you judge me? Do I have the Right to be different?

That's because, fundamentally, you (and they) haven't got a clue what Anarchism actually means.

 

[Gmart]

That's because, fundamentally, you (and they) haven't got a clue what Anarchism actually means.

Bollocks, I have spent ages looking into Anarchism through discussion with so-called Anarchists and reading thread after thread and book after book. Even here the subject has come up again and again and they usually say much the same as this - stating that I haven't a clue but refusing to back this up with any commentary as to where I am 'wrong'. If you wish to comment on the description in the clip then feel free.

What do you mean by "freedom"? Where do these "rights" come from?

Any society is set up with a list of agreed rights and wrongs.

For freedom I defer to JS Mill here. Inevitably people will disagree with me on metaphysical issues and thus the need to agree to disagree. If a discussion on the facts occurs then it is important to be open to being wrong on every front, yet often (as here) the original topic (the clip on youtube) is derailed for the subject those with agendas would prefer to discuss.

On a physical level of course, my fist is limited by the position of your face, yet we are rarely talking about such physical issues - usually we are talking about the metaphysical.

Our Rights are decided by the constitutional set up of a country over time. Of course in the UK we don't even have a written constitution in stark contrast with most other countries. This has historical roots. The excuse is that we have an 'unwritten' constitution, which is a bullshit excuse for oligarchic abuse of the population if ever I've heard it. What we need is to discuss and formulate a modern, progressive written constitution.

The criticism of democracy in the clip is good too. The recognition of the need for a Republic, rather than a democracy and the avoidance of the word by the founding fathers is very interesting and makes sense.