• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Private job losses mount, ominous for payrolls

I see. What do you do with the people who disagree?

What do you do with the people who start an opposition party, in this one-party system?
 
I see. What do you do with the people who disagree?

What do you do with the people who start an opposition party, in this one-party system?

Thats the whole point, there are no parties, everyone is independent and vote on case to case basis. Everyone just does what they think is best for the people and the country, rather than gang up to beat the other gang.
The more complex question is, how can that function? How can we avoid people grouping together? Thats the complicated answer.

Political reform, dedicated politicians, making parties/groupings illegal, surveillance of the political process and so on are a good beginning.
 
Last edited:
Thats the whole point, there are no parties, everyone is independent and vote on case to case basis. Everyone just does what they think is best for the people and the country, rather than gang up to beat the other gang.
The more complex question is, how can that function? How can we avoid people grouping together? Thats the complicated answer.

Political reform, dedicated politicians, making parties/groupings illegal, surveillance of the political process and so on are a good beginning.

And you call the US Government Nazi's.

"On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
" - ::Nazi Germany - Dictatorship::

Your plan would put us one step closer to dictatorship, much like China.
 
Last edited:
And you call the US Government Nazi's.

"On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
" - ::Nazi Germany - Dictatorship::

Your plan would put us one step closer to dictatorship, much like China.

No, because I want politics to be under surveillance by the people, and I want the one party to have no agenda, just to make a status for making multi parties illegal, and have all politicians be independent under a party that work for the people and the state.
China is a better version of political rule than the US for example. All they want is to do whats best for the people and the state, as opposed to the US where two parties bicker against each other and forget that their job is to work for the best of the people and the state.
 
No, because I want politics to be under surveillance by the people, and I want the one party to have no agenda, just to make a status for making multi parties illegal, and have all politicians be independent under a party that work for the people and the state.

Which leads (according to history) right to fascism, plain and simple. Yes face facts you want exactly what Hitler and Mussolini wanted. A nazi or fascist dictatorship.

Take a look at what you want, it is exactly the same.

China is a better version of political rule than the US for example. All they want is to do whats best for the people and the state, as opposed to the US where two parties bicker against each other and forget that their job is to work for the best of the people and the state.

:lol:

"Yang Fude, vice-president of Beijing Hui Long Guan Hospital, said China is the only country where suicides among women outnumber men.

It is also one of the few countries where rural suicides outnumber urban suicides," he said on World Suicide Prevention Day.

Though suicide ranks fifth after cerebrovascular diseases (such as a stroke), bronchitis, chronic emphysema, liver cancer and pneumonia, it is the leading cause of death for people aged between 15 and 34.
" - China's suicide rate among world's highest

A Bastian of happiness and what is best for the people, a communist dictatorship. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Private job losses mount, ominous for payrolls | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

Flash estimates say another 700.000 jobs were lost in the US in December, making a probable new unemployment rate at the end of the year 2008 of 7.3%...

How horrific..

the US unemployment has now cought up with Europe, and is predicted to race by in a hurry. Europes unemployment has for a long time been in the 7ish % area, while that in the US was as low as 3.8% at the same time..

I actually told all of you guys this some years ago, that it would happen, in some of my posts.. But no, you wouldnt listen..

Atm, I would not be surprised to see a future total economic collapse in the US, especially as a result of other bad news that your government is going to have a 2 trillion$ deficit on the federal budget next year. Tax incomes in the US are 2.6 trillion. So 2 trillion in deficits seems quite scary. People will just rush to wherever they can to have their US assets withdrawn, which will again lead to further decline..

I fear you are stuck in a bad downward spiral, which seems unlikely it will ever stop. And you are dragging other economies with you, Europe for example who is also experiencing economic setbacks, and China with slower growth, while the overall world economy will only grow around 2.5% next year.

This can`t possibly have anything to do with our failing economy. Outsourceing strenghtens America by keeping corporations and investors economicly healthy.If they`re healthy those of us who have lost our jobs to the MONEY WHORES will be healthy. Thats what the media said....
 
And you call the US Government Nazi's.

"On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.
" - ::Nazi Germany - Dictatorship::

Your plan would put us one step closer to dictatorship, much like China.

DOG : When the EUs speak socialism and communism issue from their mouths.I am so glad for forums like DP where you get a first hand look at what societies are really about. Thank you much for the NAZI HISTORY LESSON/refresher course...lest we forget. I think the Germans hated the jews similarly to the muslims and the Russians hatred of these seemingly docile people. Again ...lest we forget. I think I`m beginning to see why we`ve never become business partners to any greater degree with Europe.
 
Right. Never mind that the conditions which allow the "best traits" are often contradictory and mutually exclusive. "Efficiency," for example, comes from a lack of deliberation and an abundance of central autocracy, both of which are antithetical to freedom and choice.

Of course, as you cite China and the EU as your top models, that probably doesn't concern you much. Besides, letting people decide too much for themselves about their lives only leads to the kinds of problems we have today, right? Best to leave that kind of decision-making to the people who know best, no?

You wouldn't be the first to think you can create a kinder, gentler fascism; you won't be the last, and it's certain that more blood will one day be spilled defeating yet another attempt, which will inevitably go the same way all the others have.

And it will probably have originated in the mind of a bored Euro who disdains the bourgeois, as it always does. Hmmm.

But I know . . . you have it all figured out, right? You know how to make it "work," right? This time, I'm SURE, it'll be different. :roll:

Harshaw...A+.
 
Harshaw, just wanted to point out that China is not a fascist nation, but a one-party rule system. There is a big difference. Fascism relies upon a single leader to call all the shots. The communist party in China still votes on things collectively, and one person does not make all the decisions.

Maximus, if you really are looking to China as a model, then you'll also want to look at how rife with corruption the Chinese system is right now. Aside from the human rights issues, there is high level embezzlement that happens all the time. It's ironic really, that embezzlement is punishable by death here, yet the top of communists with their connections to the corporate infrastructure all get a cut, routinely. It makes the system rather inefficient.
 
Harshaw, just wanted to point out that China is not a fascist nation, but a one-party rule system. There is a big difference. Fascism relies upon a single leader to call all the shots. The communist party in China still votes on things collectively, and one person does not make all the decisions.

Maximus, if you really are looking to China as a model, then you'll also want to look at how rife with corruption the Chinese system is right now. Aside from the human rights issues, there is high level embezzlement that happens all the time. It's ironic really, that embezzlement is punishable by death here, yet the top of communists with their connections to the corporate infrastructure all get a cut, routinely. It makes the system rather inefficient.

Did I ever say we should adopt the Chinese system? Didnt I say 5 times or so between these posts that we should create hybrid systems, which takes the best of each type of model from the past and the current? One thing to snap up from the Chinese model is their one party system and "working for the nation" attitude, rather than political bickering between groups.

I can mention a dusin things we should take from the US/European models and dusins of things from the EU and hundreds of things from past models.. Dont get me wrong, but you are wrong in your assumptions about me, but most likely because I am too lazy to explain my views completely, something that would requite huge postings and a lot of extra philosophy on my side to correctly phrase it. I am better with brain than words.

But surely, none of this is relevant for the post we are within..
 
And who decides what the "good parts" and the "bad parts" are? How does this new system simply come into being without challenging the sovereignty of the system of states?

Maximus Zeebra said:
One thing to snap up from the Chinese model is their one party system and "working for the nation" attitude, rather than political bickering between groups.

Their one party system provides zero representation to the public though. No one elects their leaders, so the leaders don't really have to listen to any of the peoples' qualms. It also affects the courts, and the ability of people to bring challenges to the state. For instance, after the milk contamination crisis, anyone who brought challenges to the courts were blocked. People were even detained for protesting.

The system doesn't work if people's freedom is hindered and they can't express themselves, nor does it work without a sense of justice.
 
And who decides what the "good parts" and the "bad parts" are? How does this new system simply come into being without challenging the sovereignty of the system of states?

Well, I think all societies need to rethink their way of governance and bring on political and governmental changes. We have to reform, it will be a process, I think everyone from kings to the tiny people to some degree have to be part of making a new system.

What do you mean by "How does this new system simply come into being without challenging the sovereignty of the system of states?"..

I am not actually saying HOW the system should be, I am really only saying that we need a new political system, mainly I am talking about western democracies right now. The only thing clear is that we need to adopt a hybrid system which takes the best of each system for the sake of the following:

-Give as much freedom to the people as possible
-Minimize government interference
-But at the same time bring back strength and validity(credibility) to governments
-Remove the sick parts of democracy
-Bring politics back into politics
-Encourage long term planning of our societies(as a main responsibility of governance)
-Make governments more elitists and less average
-"Set terms", for the society to work around

These are just a few things..
I basically think we have to redefine the responsibilities of governance and politics and limit them. But at the same time we need to make sure politics really have an effect and that politics is not about elections, but about results, long term results. We need to remove "individuality" and "idolization" from politics and simply think of it as "the governing body of politicians", where everyone works together for the best solutions, and where politics overall, not individuals, present this to the people. Politics must more neatly become a singular entity that works for the PEOPLE and the STATE, rather than individual or other type of interests. We need to remove corruption, and we need to make it possible for the people to surveillance and follow the political process in a political way, not an entertaining way. We must bring back accountability to politics, and remove the "circus politics" that we see today".. We must create a society with long term sustainable plans to build and prosper around, all the while people live their own lives free from the stranglehold and constant changes of situation that we live in today. We need our governments to be fiscally responsible and invest and save into our future, rather than make us all poor by indenting us.

Politics of today is so flawed that its impossible to start somewhere, or even cover a small percentage of what should be changed, but deep inside us, we all know politics of todays, and governance of today inst working. All we need is stability and sustainable development, which hits all people in the society. We dont need a "circus politics" with constant dramatics, all we need is for them to take care of the people, while letting the people operate independently for themselves. Politics and governance only need to be a foundation for the people to operate around, it need not interfere with all walks of our lives, nor the live of the nations.

Their one party system provides zero representation to the public though. No one elects their leaders, so the leaders don't really have to listen to any of the peoples' qualms. It also affects the courts, and the ability of people to bring challenges to the state. For instance, after the milk contamination crisis, anyone who brought challenges to the courts were blocked. People were even detained for protesting.

The system doesn't work if people's freedom is hindered and they can't express themselves, nor does it work without a sense of justice.

I like the elitist part of the one party system in China as well. But then I have to repeat again after reading your post that I do not adore any system, nor wish for the adoption of any singular current or past system. I want a hybrid system, which takes the best from all.
 
Thats the whole point, there are no parties, everyone is independent and vote on case to case basis. Everyone just does what they think is best for the people and the country, rather than gang up to beat the other gang.
The more complex question is, how can that function? How can we avoid people grouping together? Thats the complicated answer.

That IS the question I asked, yes. You can't stop people from gathering together in coffee houses and living rooms and deciding on a common goal and banding together for solidarity. Not without totalitarianism.

Political reform, dedicated politicians, making parties/groupings illegal, surveillance of the political process and so on are a good beginning.

And here it is, the beginning of that totalitarianism. Government agents busting up private meetings, people being disappeared in the middle of the night . . .

Son, if the armband fits, wear it.
 
China is a better version of political rule than the US for example.

Sure. It doesn't let those pesky citizens with their own ideas of how they might want to conduct their own lives get in the way of things.

All they want is to do whats best for the people and the state

:rofl

Even if that were true, you do realize that what's "best" for "the people" and for "the state" are often contradictory?

as opposed to the US where two parties bicker against each other and forget that their job is to work for the best of the people and the state.

No, that's not their job. Their job is to make it so that people can go on with their daily lives with a minimum of interference, to maximize the fruits of liberty and individual rights. The people themselves work for their own best as they see fit.

Gridlock is good. The less the government does, the fewer laws it passes, the better off we all are.
 
Harshaw, just wanted to point out that China is not a fascist nation, but a one-party rule system.

It's Communist, which shares its philosophical roots with fascism.


There is a big difference. Fascism relies upon a single leader to call all the shots. The communist party in China still votes on things collectively, and one person does not make all the decisions.

That's not particularly true. The head of state in China has powers on par with any fascist dictator, and under the fascist governments, the parties still voted on the same kinds of things the Communist party in China vote on.

Besides, it's not like there's one pat definition of a fascist state set in stone. German fascism differed somewhat from Italian fascism. And their Communist cousins weren't particularly different from how they did much of anything. It's just a slightly different mix of most of the same ingredients.
 
But surely, none of this is relevant for the post we are within..

On the contrary, it is absolutely relevant, because it springs entirely from the motivation you have for posting these topics.

You're not a particularly original character; you're seizing upon an economic downturn to push "revolutonary" ideas. Your kind always crops up at times like these. True, you lot gain more traction the worse it gets and the more scared people are, so you like to fan the flames. Things were particularly bad in the 1930s, so your intellectual kin were given a free reign in too many places, and Europe was bombed flat in the 1940s as a result. Among other things.
 
That IS the question I asked, yes. You can't stop people from gathering together in coffee houses and living rooms and deciding on a common goal and banding together for solidarity. Not without totalitarianism.



And here it is, the beginning of that totalitarianism. Government agents busting up private meetings, people being disappeared in the middle of the night . . .

Son, if the armband fits, wear it.

Surveilance OF the politicians BY the people(or people who represent the people and not politics)..
 
Sure. It doesn't let those pesky citizens with their own ideas of how they might want to conduct their own lives get in the way of things.

People in China are almost as free as people in the US. Especially now with all the decreases of freedom in the US and further state involvement. If there is any state close to being a fascist state its the US.


Even if that were true, you do realize that what's "best" for "the people" and for "the state" are often contradictory?


Thats why we should look for complex yet simple solutions, rather than half functioning simple minded but complicated solutions.


No, that's not their job. Their job is to make it so that people can go on with their daily lives with a minimum of interference, to maximize the fruits of liberty and individual rights. The people themselves work for their own best as they see fit.

Gridlock is good. The less the government does, the fewer laws it passes, the better off we all are.

And yet, in the US people get less and less freedoms, while people in China get more and more.. So who is REALLY working for the people?
 
It's Communist, which shares its philosophical roots with fascism.




That's not particularly true. The head of state in China has powers on par with any fascist dictator, and under the fascist governments, the parties still voted on the same kinds of things the Communist party in China vote on.

Besides, it's not like there's one pat definition of a fascist state set in stone. German fascism differed somewhat from Italian fascism. And their Communist cousins weren't particularly different from how they did much of anything. It's just a slightly different mix of most of the same ingredients.

Id say the US for example relies MORE on one single decision maker than China, what Orion is saying is true, they take their decisions collectively. Thats the point I am looking for here anyways. All that you refer to is the worst of all systems I mention, yet I have repeatedly said we should collect the best of every system. Nor did I say we should adopt the fascist system alltogether, like you make it sound. But many things of fascism are pretty good, wouldnt you agree? Then we just root out the bad and put them on the "no no list".

All thoughout this post contrary to what you believe I have called for abolishing of single leaders and decision makers, and even small such groups. Collective decision making is far superior.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, it is absolutely relevant, because it springs entirely from the motivation you have for posting these topics.

You're not a particularly original character; you're seizing upon an economic downturn to push "revolutonary" ideas. Your kind always crops up at times like these. True, you lot gain more traction the worse it gets and the more scared people are, so you like to fan the flames. Things were particularly bad in the 1930s, so your intellectual kin were given a free reign in too many places, and Europe was bombed flat in the 1940s as a result. Among other things.

Its not relevant at all.. The reason I posted this thread was because I read the news and wanted to share them with you..
Afterall, these are new numbers, and the category we are posting in is "breaking news", which it was.
 
Surveilance OF the politicians BY the people(or people who represent the people and not politics)..

Political parties aren't made of politicians. They're made of people who come together for common cause.

Being surveilled for possible legal penalty is the same no matter who's doing it -- by the government, or by citizen informers. If it's being done to keep people from freely associating with other, it's totalitarian any way you slice it.

Nice world you envision. Don't count me in.
 
People in China are almost as free as people in the US. Especially now with all the decreases of freedom in the US and further state involvement. If there is any state close to being a fascist state its the US.

And you continue down your textbook fascist propagandist ways. In this case, I'd venture to say it may be because you actually believe this utter drivel is true.



Thats why we should look for complex yet simple solutions, rather than half functioning simple minded but complicated solutions.

That is a meaningless babbling of a sentence. But, a wonderful propagandist slogan.


And yet, in the US people get less and less freedoms, while people in China get more and more.. So who is REALLY working for the people?

I've been hearing for years that all these "freedoms" are being taken away here in the US, but I have yet to be given a concrete example.

And I can name probably about 60 prominent people just off the top of my head who, if this were China and they were speaking the same things against the Chinese government as they do here about ours, would be in prison or dead.

But continue. You're only making it more and more obvious how clueless you really are with each and every post.
 
Political parties aren't made of politicians. They're made of people who come together for common cause.

Being surveilled for possible legal penalty is the same no matter who's doing it -- by the government, or by citizen informers. If it's being done to keep people from freely associating with other, it's totalitarian any way you slice it.

Nice world you envision. Don't count me in.

Thats another problem, politicians are average fools, they should be mostly the elite of the society.
 
Id say the US for example relies MORE on one single decision maker than China

I'm sure you would "say" that. And you'd be wrong.

All that you refer to is the worst of all systems I mention, yet I have repeatedly said we should collect the best of every system. Nor did I say we should adopt the fascist system alltogether, like you make it sound.

I respond to what you say should be implemented.

But many things of fascism are pretty good, wouldnt you agree?

Those things which are "good" about it are not worth their price -- on freedom, on choice, on individual rights, on the human spirit.

Then we just root out the bad and put them on the "no no list".

You can't. The things which make fascism "work" are the things which lead to the horrors of it.


All thoughout this post contrary to what you believe I have called for abolishing of single leaders and decision makers, and even small such groups. Collective decision making is far superior.

You wish to abolish those who come together in opposition to your one-party system. I don't find that "superior" in any way.
 
Its not relevant at all.. The reason I posted this thread was because I read the news and wanted to share them with you..

Yes, you want to share them in order to push your agenda. Like I said, you're not breaking any new ground here.
 
Back
Top Bottom