South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
I agree that power should be decentralized and heavily constrained. But “nobody should hold the office” creates another question: someone still has to exercise executive authority. So what does your alternative actually look like in practice?
Well, that certainly answers my question.
Although “my standards are too high for Charlie Kirk” somehow escalated rather quickly to “send every politician in the world to the gallows.” But I hear you.I wonder if if he changed his mind about gun deaths ? In heaven, he must be thinking it was all worth it, ne ? New kind of Jesus, if you will.
The greatest check and balance on power over others is the freedom to leave the political union.
But you're still not really answering the question. “You can leave” is all good and well, but someone still has to run the bloody thing while you're there. Who makes the decisions, enforces the laws and settles disputes? What does your alternative actually look like in the real world?The greatest check and balance on power over others is the freedom to leave the political union.
It's that simple.
Not that if you fail to act in time it remains as easy as it once was.... quite the reverse.
Nobody can afford not to exercise the right to freedom of association on a regular basis.
Footnote: I suggest the reason it has become as difficult as it now is, is because we have been tempted into relinquishing individual responsibility on the grounds that human nature is evil and depraved and weak.
Meantime the one's selling us that portrayal are the ones who believe they can't learn/improve their abilities. That's what you call Determinism, or Biological Reductionism. This is the position that gives rise to 'scientific' fields like Malthusian Eugenics, Racial Hygiene and Psychiatry.
And there it is... the same quote again. Nobody said gun deaths are a good thing. His argument was that preserving a constitutional right comes with risks and sometimes terrible consequences. You can disagree with that argument, but at least argue against what he actually meant rather than pretending he was celebrating people being shot.
It doesn't much matter if whoever you appoint knows they risk losing voluntary members by failing to represent them..
We're getting further away from my question with every reply.
I asked how your alternative actually works in practice... Who governs, enforces laws, and settles disputes? We've somehow ended up at the Soviet Union and American imperialism.Sure, I am sure he is at peace knowing his death was worth it. At least he didn't plan his own fake assassination like the orange pedo.
I said, as long as you have a proper check and balance, it doesn't matter.We're getting further away from my question with every reply.
I'm not asking why you dislike centralized power. You've made that pretty clear. I'm asking what you replace it with.
We're getting further away from my question with every reply.
You sound cynical.
Fair enough. I just wouldn't call “it doesn't matter, as long as there's a check and balance” a concrete answer.
When you're governing millions of people, the details matter quite a bit. But I get where you're coming from.
Well, I don't like to preempt human beings innovation.Fair enough. I just wouldn't call “it doesn't matter, as long as there's a check and balance” a concrete answer.
Ah, there it is. Mock Kirk’s death, call Trump a pedo and claim he staged his own assassination attempt.
Mate, countries aren't VMs.
You can't spin up 20 different governance models, see which one crashes and restore the population from a snapshot. Real people have to live through the failed experiments.
They haven't quite knocked all the hope out of you just yet, I suspect.... otherwise I wouldn't see the knee-jerk every time I offer an alternative.
