Europe is too much of a soft touch

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

[El Kabong]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

[walrus]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

You can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

You can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.

Anarcho Syndicate is generally built on a form of a 'Federal structure'. But yes it could be described as a confederacy, but I tried to avoid that term, as I suspect it has 'loaded' meanings to Americans.

As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.

[walrus]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

You can't have democracy without rights of the people to own property. You worry that capitalism has become corrupt and needs to be fixed. Your concern is not without merit but I don't have enough faith in any government body to say it can not be corrupted. In China, where government has owned most of the businesses, corruption runs amok. Now I see you refer to a federation. Are you referring to a confederate? I'm just trying to see where you are coming from. It seems to me your ideas are more outside of a democracy yet you say direct democracy.

Anarcho Syndicate is generally built on a form of a 'Federal structure'. But yes it could be described as a confederacy, but I tried to avoid that term, as I suspect it has 'loaded' meanings to Americans.

As for 'no democracy without property rights'; the 'people' ('the syndicate'), not the 'person' would 'own' property, thus it is not an issue.

After the revolution and prior to the civil war our first form of government was a confederate. Didn't work out well. If you read our history you will see there were a few presidents before Washington, Washington was the fist under the constitution. So a confederate was tried here in the US and was not sustainable. I believe Switzerland is a confederate, don't know how many other confederate countries are out their. No American should take issue with you using the word confederate especially when discussing forms of government. None of us are advocating slavery, although I know you commies are big on that in your gulags and what not.

[Britkid]

After the revolution and prior to the civil war our first form of government was a confederate. Didn't work out well. If you read our history you will see there were a few presidents before Washington, Washington was the fist under the constitution. So a confederate was tried here in the US and was not sustainable. I believe Switzerland is a confederate, don't know how many other confederate countries are out their. No American should take issue with you using the word confederate especially when discussing forms of government. None of us are advocating slavery, although I know you commies are big on that in your gulags and what not.

Yes Communism liked its gulags; the UK invented the Concentration Camp and the US advocates torture... Changing the system will not resolve that aspect of society.

Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...

[walrus]

After the revolution and prior to the civil war our first form of government was a confederate. Didn't work out well. If you read our history you will see there were a few presidents before Washington, Washington was the fist under the constitution. So a confederate was tried here in the US and was not sustainable. I believe Switzerland is a confederate, don't know how many other confederate countries are out their. No American should take issue with you using the word confederate especially when discussing forms of government. None of us are advocating slavery, although I know you commies are big on that in your gulags and what not.

Yes Communism liked its gulags; the UK invented the Concentration Camp and the US advocates torture... Changing the system will not resolve that aspect of society.

Watching an episode of QI, I think it was said Washington was something like the 13th President, which was quite interesting...

We only advocate torture when we really want to know something and someone won't tell us. But seriously, I'm against torture but it must be tempting when you have a known terrorist in front of you. If you caught the guy who had your family somewhere, would you torture him to find where they are?

[Britkid]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

In general terms, yes.

[El Kabong]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

In general terms, yes.

Mob rule is how individuals of a minority status be it economic, race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc get demonized to the point where the majority see no harm in killing off the "non-believers" those who do not assimilate. That's how you get your Holocausts, your Holomodors, your Great Leap Forwards, that's how you get leaders that say "1 death is a tragedy, a million deaths are but a statistic".


Rule of Law, property rights, limited government, liberty...those are very important concepts that direct democracies/mob rule do not value.


And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

[walrus]

Good point el kabong, I was looking into the founding fathers debates on direct democracy. One of the reasons they were against it was to protect the minority from the majority or as Franklin said, the tyranny of the majority. Strange as we had slaves who weren't even regarded as humans at the time but that is how it was in the day. Apparently, Switzerland has a few aspects of direct democracy which at one tome prevented almost 90 percent of laws being passed. Switzerland borrowed many aspects of our constitution especially during the late 1800's

[Britkid]

And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

Indeed!

As for the rest of your views; it should be noted, nothing, and I mean nothing has come close to killing the amount of people Capitalism has.

Human rights are a different kettle of fish, that need World wide not State wide consensus.

I have made it clear I would pick a form of Anarcho Syndicalism, because economy it would help a majority, a majority that Capitalism no longer cares for or indeed even serves without State help.

[walrus]

And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

Indeed!

As for the rest of your views; it should be noted, nothing, and I mean nothing has come close to killing the amount of people Capitalism has.

Human rights are a different kettle of fish, that need World wide not State wide consensus.

I have made it clear I would pick a form of Anarcho Syndicalism, because economy it would help a majority, a majority that Capitalism no longer cares for or indeed even serves without State help.

On that one you are wrong, Mao and Stalin alone killed far more than any capitalist regime, I'm surprised you would make that statement

[Britkid]

And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

Indeed!

As for the rest of your views; it should be noted, nothing, and I mean nothing has come close to killing the amount of people Capitalism has.

Human rights are a different kettle of fish, that need World wide not State wide consensus.

I have made it clear I would pick a form of Anarcho Syndicalism, because economy it would help a majority, a majority that Capitalism no longer cares for or indeed even serves without State help.

On that one you are wrong, Mao and Stalin alone killed far more than any capitalist regime, I'm surprised you would make that statement

Come on; Stalin and Mao were not directly involved in both world wars. They were not involved in for lack of a better term, the Modern Crusades. They were not directly involved (but no doubt proxy) in Korea or Vietnam. They were not alive for the Balkan slaughters of the 90s. They were not born/too young to be involved in the horrors of the British Empire in the 18/19th Century. Or France's, Germany's and indeed America's attempts to grab/control land in the 19th and 20th Centuries. They did not get involved in Ireland's Independence battles with the UK, or the struggles of the 'then' India and African countries attempts to gain independence.

Mao and Stalin were indeed responsible for the death of Millions, but Capitalism is in a completely different league when it comes to killing their enemies...

[El Kabong]

So you feel not protecting property rights and giving government more power would be part of this answer.

Yes, ultimately no one would 'own' property, it should eventually 'belong' to the 'syndicate', but initially that would be the state, as a part of an interim Socialist Federation. More 'government power' would occur, but under a form of Direct Democracy.

So.....mob rule is best?

In general terms, yes.

Mob rule is how individuals of a minority status be it economic, race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc get demonized to the point where the majority see no harm in killing off the "non-believers" those who do not assimilate. That's how you get your Holocausts, your Holomodors, your Great Leap Forwards, that's how you get leaders that say "1 death is a tragedy, a million deaths are but a statistic".


Rule of Law, property rights, limited government, liberty...those are very important concepts that direct democracies/mob rule do not value.


And no doubt you're anti-gun as well correct?

Indeed!

I'm not surprised.


Historically that kind of idea/political set up has lead to millions upon millions of deaths

[Britkid]

I'm not surprised.


Historically that kind of idea/political set up has lead to millions upon millions of deaths

More people, on average, are killed by a gun in ten hours in the US than in the entire year of 2014 in the UK. That seems pretty damning of your country's gun culture to me.

And that you seem to bring it up time and again... Have some confidence in yourself, I accept you are a man, you do not need a gun to prove that!