🇳🇱
Republican: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear red ties
Democrats: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear blue ties
@freemo
The longer we keep a two party system the further we will keep this red v blue mentality. I wonder if I will ever see an independent sworn in before I die of climate change.
@Darkayne While the two party system isnt helping , and yea partly the cause I think people becoming polarized is such a deep rooted issue at this point im not sure if we will ever truely see sanity
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Everyone that votes for party that has an agenda of "doing something" other than dismantling the gang of thieves, known as government, are Authoritarian Tyrant Worshipers.
It is useless semantics what to call it.
And many of the slaves were convinced that their own enslavement was better for them than "free men", so it is understandable to be "nervous" on how it could possibly work without these institutions of evil.
I don't have that answer, but I totally agree with the image you posted. Society is THAT absurd.
I ronically slaves remaining slaves for their own good was **not** just an invention of slave owners (though perhaps that happened too)... It was a legitimate concern for some slaves. Being free was often a death sentance.
Obviously in the long term being free has been great for them and it is obviously the right thing to do. But in the short term it meant certain death for many with no food, work, job, and just the fact that without a master people will be a lot quicker to kill you. If you had a kind and generous master (of course not many did) I can see why objectively you might want to remain a slave givin the conditions in the world at the time for a free black man.
Because someone needs to organize our collective resources to achieve greater works.. even if the people do this through elected and selected charities, they have no choosen a "master" over that aspect.
As long as there is no coercion and violence against individuals, then that is fine. But I presume you will argue that there must be, in which case I am not on-board.
Classical rebuttal; "Someone has to pick the cotton."
Ok so how do you deal with people who generally today are only handle with violence or coercion.
How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?
Presuming you are ok with using biolence to prevent a greater violence then who gets to determine that? Is it a court? In which case your back to governments that use violence... Is it some ransom individual? In which case you are back to a mob applying that violence.
"How do you stop someone who is harming or torturing another without using force?"
I have repeatedly pointed out that self-defense is the only justification for violence. And it is a right I have, hence I can delegate that right to someone else. I don't have to, but I can.
How does that work when your locked in a basement of the evil commune and they are torturing you... you wont have any way to call or obtain someone to defend you, and you cant defend yourself... So shit out of luck and you just die your dropped your guard for a moment?
@freemo
Yes. And why people today are so set on having a Master to "protect" them. Fear is the primary weapon of people who want to assert control over others.
@modrobert @Darkayne