RIP Charlie Kirk

[lexity]

Yep, and I often don't like that either, the idea of voting for your candidate not your party is more appealing. But we work with what we've got.

You claim it works.

I don't see it working.

I see individuals - under an ever-increasing burden - making up for a failing State.... but doing so on a whim and prayer.

This is not a sustainable way forward. And burying your head in the sand like an ostrich is not exactly the epitome of reclaiming individual responsibility.

 

[lordnokon]

NEWSFLASH.....

It means exactly that.

Unless you definite a right as a legal privilege to pick you neighbors pocket to pay for any part of it.

NEWSFLASH... saying “it means exactly that” doesn't make it so.

Article 1 says peoples have a right to self-determination. Show me where it says an individual can unilaterally withdraw from the state, its laws and its tax obligations.

That's the claim you're making, so show me the actual legal right.

 

[Brian_G]

You claim it works.

I don't see it working.

I see individuals - under an ever-increasing burden - making up for a failing State.... but doing so on a whim and prayer.

This is not a sustainable way forward. And burying your head in the sand like an ostrich is not exactly the epitome of reclaiming individual responsibility.

But it does work; it's doing something whereas not voting is doing nothing.

I'm not for a moment suggesting the rest of your post is wrong, again we have to use what's available as well.


That said, if the choices in a vote session are all too valueless from my perspective, I don't vote.

Take this November's Jo'burg vote - if you were living here, would you vote to try bring Helen in or not?

 

[lordnokon]

You are making the leap as some others on this forum.

Nowhere have I ever advocated a system of no-rules.

Yet, here, you are attributing that view to me.

Let's keep this civil. Try not to put words in my mouth/ascribe views to me which I never advocated.

I didn't say you advocated “no rules”. I said freedom comes with rules and consequences. There's a difference.

You've spent half this discussion telling me people should be free to leave political unions and choose which rules they associate under. I'm asking where the limits are and who enforces them.

And “let's keep this civil” is a bit rich immediately after telling me I'm naive and accusing me of moral superiority.

 

[lexity]

NEWSFLASH... saying “it means exactly that” doesn't make it so.

Article 1 says peoples have a right to self-determination. Show me where it says an individual can unilaterally withdraw from the state, its laws and its tax obligations.

That's the claim you're making, so show me the actual legal right.

The presumption - for better or worse - is that its written for reasonable, thinking people to interpret. People who are prepared to take some responsibility for knowing how individuals derived freedom, historically and how it can be preserved.

Obvious, to those people, is the fact that if you need permission to leave a political union, then you either at some point relinquished the unilateral right to leave, or you never had it to begin with.

Do you honestly believe the intention in 1994 when Mandela signed the treaty was for citizens to obtain permission from the ANC/governing party, at any point in the future, if they didn't like having their rights voted away by the absolute majority?

Really?

Do you honestly not know the difference between an absolute majority and one limited by a BoRs?

p.s. In other words, do you agree with the ANC that democracy means mob-rule aka Majoritarianism? That's where the majority can vote on the contents of the BoRs without the minority having unilateral recourse to exit?

That is their quintessentially Marxist position.... Majoritarianism/mob-rule. Without widespread agreement on the meaning of democracy.... there is no 'the people'.

 

[lordnokon]

The presumption - for better or worse - is that its written for reasonable, thinking people to interpret. People who are prepared to take some responsibility for knowing how individuals derived freedom, historically and how it can be preserved.

Obvious, to those people, is the fact that if you need permission to leave a political union, then you either at some point relinquished the unilateral right to leave, or you never had it to begin with.

Do you honestly believe the intention in 1994 when Mandela signed the treaty was for citizens to obtain permission from the ANC/governing party, at any point in the future, if they didn't like having their rights voted away by the absolute majority?

Really?

Do you honestly not know the difference between an absolute majority and one limited by a BoRs?

p.s. In other words, do you agree with the ANC that democracy means mob-rule aka Majoritarianism? That's where the majority can vote on the contents of the BoRs without the minority having unilateral recourse to exit?

That is their quintessentially Marxist position.... Majoritarianism/mob-rule. Without widespread agreement on the meaning of democracy.... there is no 'the people'.

And now Mandela has entered the chat.

What Mandela may or may not have intended has F*KK*L to do with the question I asked you.

You said Article 1 gives an individual the unilateral legal right to leave the political union.

Show me where it says that... I'll wait...

Not your interpretation of it. Not “first principles”. The actual legal basis for the right you're claiming exists.

Otherwise, I'm down debating your interpretation of what the law should mean, when I've been asking you what it actually means.

 

[lexity]

And “let's keep this civil” is a bit rich immediately after telling me I'm naive and accusing me of moral superiority.

I said you - and everyone else who interpreted democracy in South Africa as limited by a BoRs - has the morally superior position.

If that isn't you, well.... ok.

 

[Sideshow Bob]

They keep asking for evidence knowing such evidence is either redacted, withheld or suppressed.

No point in arguing with a pedo lover really. Best is to ignore. I realised it a bit late as I was thinking he was different than the usual pedo supporter crowd.

 

[Sapphiron]

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?

 

[lordnokon]

I said you - and everyone else who interpreted democracy in South Africa as limited by a BoRs - has the morally superior position.

If that isn't you, well.... ok.

Fair enough, then I misunderstood what you meant by “moral superiority”. I'll give you that one.

Doesn't change the actual point we're debating though.

 

[lordnokon]

No point in arguing with a pedo lover really. Best is to ignore. I realised it a bit late as I was thinking he was different than the usual pedo supporter crowd.

And there we have it.

Asked for evidence... F*KK*L... couldn't provide any... F*KK*L... “pedo lover” rinse and repeat.

That's not an argument, Bob. That's a tantrum with a keyboard.

But yes, ignoring me is probably your best option. Then you won't have to answer the question.

 

[lexity]

And now Mandela has entered the chat.

What Mandela may or may not have intended has F*KK*L to do with the question I asked you.

You said Article 1 gives an individual the unilateral legal right to leave the political union.

Show me where it says that... I'll wait...

Not your interpretation of it. Not “first principles”. The actual legal basis for the right you're claiming exists.

You realise that you have set up an impossible situation i.e. laws that don't require interpretation by citizens.

Talk about relinquishing responsibility for how laws are interpreted.

Otherwise, I'm down debating your interpretation of what the law should mean, when I've been asking you what it actually means.

I'm saying it means two things to 2 morally distinct groups of people.

And on that basis there is no 'we the people of the Republic of South Africa'.

The 2 groups are morally incompatible.... and the borders drawn politically - before they can be considered legitimate - should reflect exactly that.

To one group democracy does not mean you can vote on the BoRs without having to respect FoA/the right to secede.

To the other group no talk of secession should even be tolerated, since this political union doesn't work on voluntary membership.

Can you guess which group aligns openly with Marxist/Communist values.

 

[Brian_G]

Tell me, Lex, if you can't find a way to achieve this secession plan, isn't the next best option to embrace a strong push for Federalism?

And since we both well know the DA is all smoke and mirrors in that regard, wouldn't that only leave the FF+ in the WC?
Worth a vote?


I'll leave the sidetrack there.

 

[lexity]

Tell me, Lex, if you can't find a way to achieve this secession plan, isn't the next best option to embrace a strong push for Federalism?

And since we both well know the DA is all smoke and mirrors in that regard, wouldn't that only leave the FF+ in the WC?
Worth a vote?


I'll leave the sidetrack there.

If you mean that you will move this comment to the appropriate thread....

 

[lordnokon]

Okay, now THAT actually answers the question I was asking.

Randomly selecting ordinary citizens to serve for limited periods instead of creating a permanent political class is at least a practical alternative system I can get my head around.

Whether I'd trust it to run a modern country is another debate entirely, but I'll watch the rest properly.

 

[Sapphiron]

Okay, now THAT actually answers the question I was asking.

Randomly selecting ordinary citizens to serve for limited periods instead of creating a permanent political class is at least a practical alternative system I can get my head around.

Whether I'd trust it to run a modern country is another debate entirely, but I'll watch the rest properly.

I think its a lot easier to apply today with modern instant communications than it was 200 years ago.

but its a more a question of logistics than it is of policy.

you also need a roadmap to get there. Something like:
1. abolish political parties. Initially you only rely on local elected Councillors for a parliament. they only serve for 12 months and are subject to a corruption check at the end of their terms to earn a bonus. Later you switch this to the lottery based volunteer system.
2. switch to an executive that is appointed by a lottery based committee reviewing job applications. Have the laws implemented by professionals, not politicians.
3. introduce weekly referendums to approve laws. like a Sunday referendum. with in-person, ballot drop, cellphone and online voting.

 

[lexity]

Okay, now THAT actually answers the question I was asking.

Randomly selecting ordinary citizens to serve for limited periods instead of creating a permanent political class is at least a practical alternative system I can get my head around.

Whether I'd trust it to run a modern country is another debate entirely, but I'll watch the rest properly.

It may answer your question. Although, I submit to you the proof of the pudding is in the eating....

The red flag is the impulse to force your rule-set onto the unwilling participant/s.

That's why I said 'let a 1000 flowers bloom' (quoting the truth wherever I find it... in this case in the mouth of totalitarian, mass murderer Mao Tse Tung).

Quite simply, regardless of which system you advocate, the system must be opt-in, sans coercion, otherwise it's not a valid 'put your money where your mouth is' test. (any corrupt person can put other peoples' money where his mouth is).

 

[Brian_G]

The red flag is the impulse to force your rule-set onto the unwilling participant/s.

And yet enough people, despite having many considerations about what is liked and not with any one party, continue to vote and uphold the existing democratic system. So how exactly is it "force"?

Not that I doubt many would like to move to a far more agreeable version of their democratic concepts (those who give it enough thought anyway), but a mechanism to have it so doesn't exist.
Unless you consider the Swiss Canton system as being a good start to that direction.

 

[lexity]

but a mechanism to have it so doesn't exist.

That one heck of negative claim, Brian_G.

Especially coming from someone who openly eschews the individual responsibility to self-educate.

 

[Vrotappel]

Charlie Kirk murder suspect Tyler Robinson pleads not guilty as judge clears way for death penalty trial

The 23-year-old is charged with aggravated murder, a capital offence in Utah, and six other counts.

www.bbc.com