• 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!

Definition of Tyranny

Tyranny is...

  • ...when power is held by few. I'm conservative.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • ...when power is held by few. I'm independent.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • ...when power is held by few. I'm liberal.

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • ...when power holds everything. I'm conservative.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • ...when power holds everything. I'm independent..

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • ...when power holds everything. I'm liberal.

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Which of the preceding is more emphatic of tyranny?
 
i cant see the poll
 
When gov't power is abused, demanding income redistribution, rather than providing infrastructure and services for all, that is tyranny. When I choose to help my neighbor in need, then that is charity; when the gov't forces me to help your neighbor in need, then that is tyranny. When I am expected to pay for ALL of my own food, clothing and shelter and also forced, by the gov't, to help pay for the food, clothing and shelter for another able bodied citizen, that is tyranny.
 
When gov't power is abused, demanding income redistribution, rather than providing infrastructure and services for all, that is tyranny. When I choose to help my neighbor in need, then that is charity; when the gov't forces me to help your neighbor in need, then that is tyranny. When I am expected to pay for ALL of my own food, clothing and shelter and also forced, by the gov't, to help pay for the food, clothing and shelter for another able bodied citizen, that is tyranny.

That military sure is tyrannical.
 
That military sure is tyrannical.

Very funny. I guess I should have said "able bodied non-working private citizen". Supporting a military, court system and other public employees that benefit all of society is not income redistribution. Welfare, food stamps and other CHARITY is not the mission of a gov't, especially one without the balls to actually tax the public to pay for it outright, but to borrow in their names, making them pay for it later, plus interest. Taxation without representation started this nation, representation without taxation may well end it. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Tyranny is when power stands between a man and his obligations. It doesn't matter who has the power or how much power they have, as long as every man is free to do his duty to his family and his country.
 
Which of the preceding is more emphatic of tyranny?

When power holds everything? Wtf does that even mean? Its a tautology because it requires power to hold anything. Power already does and always had possession of everything that was every possessed.
 
Last edited:
When there is only one dictator, then it's a tyranny. If the dictator is a small group of people (handfull, most likely), it's an oligarchy. The number is the main difference.

The rest you know. ;)

 
When I choose to help my neighbor in need, then that is charity; when the gov't forces me to help your neighbor in need, then that is tyranny.

I honestly chuckled at this. In other words: "When the government forces me to be nice, it's tyranny!" - From the makers of such memorable lines as "empathy gave us the Holocaust" and "pepper spray is just seasoning".
 
I honestly chuckled at this. In other words: "When the government forces me to be nice, it's tyranny!" - From the makers of such memorable lines as "empathy gave us the Holocaust" and "pepper spray is just seasoning".

Who said anything being forced to be nice? Read what is written, please.
 
Last edited:
i cant see the poll
Man...why do people feel it necessary to say they can't see the poll? You don't make the poll when you post the thread. You have to post the OP *first* and then you get to go to the page where you select what kind of poll it is, type in the questions, etc. Jesus man give an OP some time to think about what they're doing. Your post was only 3 minutes after the OP was posted. Calm down. Damn.
 
Man...why do people feel it necessary to say they can't see the poll? You don't make the poll when you post the thread. You have to post the OP *first* and then you get to go to the page where you select what kind of poll it is, type in the questions, etc. Jesus man give an OP some time to think about what they're doing. Your post was only 3 minutes after the OP was posted. Calm down. Damn.

May be she's never posted a poll, so she doesn't know how it works. :)
I'd personally prefer to type the poll first and OP second, so they can appear at the same time but I guess the software doesn't allow this operation.
 
May be she's never posted a poll, so she doesn't know how it works. :)
I'd personally prefer to type the poll first and OP second, so they can appear at the same time but I guess the software doesn't allow this operation.
I'm sorry man, there's a just a lot of polls out there who's first page is ****ed up by someone complaining that they can't see the poll. Well no **** you can't see it, because it's still being made, so calm your tits.

I feel better now. Carry on.
 
When I choose to help my neighbor in need, then that is charity; when the gov't forces me to help your neighbor in need, then that is tyranny. When I am expected to pay for ALL of my own food, clothing and shelter and also forced, by the gov't, to help pay for the food, clothing and shelter for another able bodied citizen, that is tyranny.

So any tax dollars that go to things that don't directly benefit you fall under tyranny definitions?

Tax dollars spent on education, schools, roads, hospitals, and general infrastructure are bad if they are things you don't use?

If you don't have kids but some of your tax dollars are spent on schools that's wrong?
If roads you never travel on are repaired, or built using tax dollars you pay into that's wrong?

If you fell on super hard times and where homeless and hungry you would not accept any help from the government?
Not even if it meant you could feed your children or provide them with a "safer" place to sleep for the night?

Come on man.....sometimes black & white thinking is very unrealistic.
 
tyr·an·ny   [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.



Is it even remotely possible to have such a thing in the USofA when you consider the 3 branches of government, and the fact that all those in power are voted into power by the people? Which means if people want, they can vote those in charge out?

Plus, there's a term limit on the President.

When I hear the word tyranny thrown about so freely regarding the USofA I can't help but immediately think somebody is a big Sean Hannity fan.
 
So any tax dollars that go to things that don't directly benefit you fall under tyranny definitions?

Tax dollars spent on education, schools, roads, hospitals, and general infrastructure are bad if they are things you don't use?

If you don't have kids but some of your tax dollars are spent on schools that's wrong?
If roads you never travel on are repaired, or built using tax dollars you pay into that's wrong?

If you fell on super hard times and where homeless and hungry you would not accept any help from the government?
Not even if it meant you could feed your children or provide them with a "safer" place to sleep for the night?

Come on man.....sometimes black & white thinking is very unrealistic.

First of all, we have a constitution that defines limitted federal gov't powers, education and schools are not among those. The construction and maintanence of the interstate highway system is supposed to be funded by the $0.42 federal excise tax on motor fuels, the rest supported by state taxation. I never said that I was against public infrastructure, but that is FAR different from sending out "non-pay" checks to individual citizens, by name, based primarily on attaining complete non-productive status AND producing children that they are not able to support.

For those that "fall on hard times", as you term it, now a STEADY 12% to 15% of our population, we can NOT afford to spend an average of over $7,500/year on EACH of them. There is a HUGE difference in building and maintaining public "infrastructure" and supporting a permanent gov't dependent underclass. Please allow charity to return to a private function, as 85% of our population has the right to CHOOSE who they decide to help, not have the gov't "make the call". Every attempt at reform of this gov't madness that passes for "a hand up" but is, in fact, "a hand out" and harms this nation by telling folks that it is OK not to support yourselves, you have a right to gov't support, is met with resistance; it is not "fair" to make them remain sober, it is not "fair" to expect them to get a FREE K-12 education and it is not "fair" to restrict their ability to reproduce like bunnies and then use those very children as reason for "compassion".

If you have a pet that you can not (or will not) provide with food and proper care, the pet is removed to a shelter and you are charged with a crime and fined; if you have a child that you can not (or will not) provide with food and proper care, you are handed a gov't check and rewarded for that careless act, being told that it is not your fault, that you have no NEED to seek private charity, or make some serious changes in your life, it is somehow simply your right to taxpayer support. Is that insane or what?

See link: Poverty and spending over the years - Federal Safety Net
 
Last edited:
It's interesting how there are more conservatives who have voted on this poll than liberals.

I was betting that liberals would interpret it as a false dichotomy, so they wouldn't participate.
 
Is a monopoly primarily because it owns everything, or because a few people own the whole market.
 
Where is the "...when power is held by few. I'm socialist." option?
 
tyranny is when the people have almost no input on the course taken by the nation. it doesn't matter if the power is held by one person, the military, or one political party; the result is the same.
 
Where is the "...when power is held by few. I'm socialist." option?

You can vote independent. I'm talking about conventional American politics here.
 
First of all, we have a constitution that defines limitted federal gov't powers, education and schools are not among those. The construction and maintanence of the interstate highway system is supposed to be funded by the $0.42 federal excise tax on motor fuels, the rest supported by state taxation. I never said that I was against public infrastructure, but that is FAR different from sending out "non-pay" checks to individual citizens, by name, based primarily on attaining complete non-productive status AND producing children that they are not able to support.

For those that "fall on hard times", as you term it, now a STEADY 12% to 15% of our population, we can NOT afford to spend an average of over $7,500/year on EACH of them. There is a HUGE difference in building and maintaining public "infrastructure" and supporting a permanent gov't dependent underclass. Please allow charity to return to a private function, as 85% of our population has the right to CHOOSE who they decide to help, not have the gov't "make the call". Every attempt at reform of this gov't madness that passes for "a hand up" but is, in fact, "a hand out" and harms this nation by telling folks that it is OK not to support yourselves, you have a right to gov't support, is met with resistance; it is not "fair" to make them remain sober, it is not "fair" to expect them to get a FREE K-12 education and it is not "fair" to restrict their ability to reproduce like bunnies and then use those very children as reason for "compassion".

If you have a pet that you can not (or will not) provide with food and proper care, the pet is removed to a shelter and you are charged with a crime and fined; if you have a child that you can not (or will not) provide with food and proper care, you are handed a gov't check and rewarded for that careless act, being told that it is not your fault, that you have no NEED to seek private charity, or make some serious changes in your life, it is somehow simply your right to taxpayer support. Is that insane or what?

See link: Poverty and spending over the years - Federal Safety Net

Your entire argument against welfare is about a "majority" being baby poppers that make a good life off of the checks. The reality of welfare is quite the opposite. As a former recipient, I know this. The check is far from meaty. Food stamps covered only about 3 weeks of every month in groceries and that was bargain shopping for the cheapest foods. Yeah, we had a TV and a car, but we had those before we needed welfare. Some people do live off of the check yes, but to say that the majority of recipients of welfare are like that just isn't so. Welfare programs are not only helpful, but they are vital in ensuring that the middle class doesn't disappear. Yes, the welfare needs reform, but it does not need to be eradicated completely.


Furthermore, to expect private citizens to help others is ridiculous. Millionaires don't care if the homeless guy lives or not; he has no impact on the lives of the wealthy. Charity should be a completely private matter (meaning no tax write-offs etc); however, welfare is not a matter of charity.
 
Back
Top Bottom