The National Collaborativist Thread

Watermark said:
You should name your party the "National Socialist American Worker's" party. It sounds so original.

:)
Click to expand...

You are so clever....perhaps you could provide the rail they would use to run me out of town. :P

While I'm waiting for the lynching, however, you are free to question me on my awesome political vision.
 
Watermark said:
How can a movement be authoritarian without infringing on basic rights?
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is just the limit of my own vocabulary-- the State would be able to do just about anything it wanted, but would not feel the need to infringe on the people's rights.

As far as enforcing this policy on an authoritative government, that can be done through a non-traditional government such as a Triumvirate, and/or benefits of Party membership.
 
The United Kingdom is like that.

Except with everyone, not just with party members.

But constitutional protections just can't hurt, Gonzo.
 
Watermark said:
The United Kingdom is like that.

Except with everyone, not just with party members.

But constitutional protections just can't hurt, Gonzo.
Click to expand...

I agree...the trouble is that a government that can do whatever it wants can easily dismiss constitutional protections.

That's why I'm still trying to figure out a system of checks/balances while waving good-bye to suffrage....the solution, in the end, is basically what the Soviets did (but with a pro-capitalism mentality), with the Party controlling the State and providing a sort of limited democracy.
 
Whether or not a society stays free doesn't depend upon an impenetrable set of checks and balances, IMHO, but the general attitude of society itself.
 
Watermark said:
Whether or not a society stays free doesn't depend upon an impenetrable set of checks and balances, IMHO, but the general attitude of society itself.
Click to expand...

That is also true. This is why the vote is an important step in the process of the National Collaborative State...suffrage offers the opportunity to develop civil liberties to the point that democracy is no longer the only viable method for freedom.
 
gonzojournals said:
Yes, it does. The vote was a necessary tool that allowed (through an increasingly inclusive voting populace) the people to slowly gain liberty from the oppression of the tyrannical governments of the Old World.
Click to expand...

I would think of it as more of a ends than as a means. Taking it back and going back to an ogliarchy like in Sparta is going backwards.
 
Watermark said:
I would think of it as more of a ends than as a means. Taking it back and going back to an ogliarchy like in Sparta is going backwards.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you have hit the nail on the head! It is not an ends, but a means. The end is the civil liberties, and while democracy is a necessary step to achieve any sustainable amount of civil liberties, it is not necessary for their continuation, in my opinion.

Think about it-- you live in a country where you have no vote, but you can do basically anything you want within the realm of reason (aka, no murder, etc.), or you can become active in the Party and still retain that vote, if that is what you truly hold dear.
 
gonzojournals said:
Ah, but you have hit the nail on the head! It is not an ends, but a means. The end is the civil liberties, and while democracy is a necessary step to achieve any sustainable amount of civil liberties, it is not necessary for their continuation, in my opinion.

Think about it-- you live in a country where you have no vote, but you can do basically anything you want within the realm of reason (aka, no murder, etc.), or you can become active in the Party and still retain that vote, if that is what you truly hold dear.
Click to expand...

But the delays and deliberations naturally present in an entrenched Democratic system do a pretty good job of maintaining individual liberties, IMHO.

And who decides who get to enter the party?

If membership is open to anyone, why wouldn't everyone join? Or at least, "join" for the simply purpose of voting at the ballot box?
 
I would prefer a dictatorship that respected my rights to a democracy didn't, but I've never seen a dictatorship that was freer than any democracy.
 
Watermark said:
But the delays and deliberations naturally present in an entrenched Democratic system do a pretty good job of maintaining individual liberties, IMHO.

And who decides who get to enter the party?

If membership is open to anyone, why wouldn't everyone join? Or at least, "join" for the simply purpose of voting at the ballot box?
Click to expand...

I'm still working on the specifics...so far I have an idea, and like any idea it still has some rough edges to work on.

However, I feel that a strong government with a healthy respect for civil liberties can also cleanse the problems that still persist in democracy. The delays and deliberations can be as much of a problem as they can ensure liberty.
 
Watermark said:
I would prefer a dictatorship that respected my rights to a democracy didn't, but I've never seen a dictatorship that was freer than any democracy.
Click to expand...

Exactly....which is exactly the problem I am hoping to address....essentially a dictatorship without the negativity that often follows totalitarian regimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top