Should We Put All the Totalitarians in Gulags? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14987236
Should We Put All the Totalitarians in Gulags?

@Thomasmariel

We know they are out there and they hate us and our freedom. Should we not do unto them what they would do unto us? Or are they too few and too weak so that we can safely ignore them?
#14987378
A fair question deserves an honest answer:

totalitarian, noun: an advocate or practitioner of totalitarianism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

totalitarianism noun:
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... itarianism

I am going with the standard definitions.



Fabians are literally worse than hitler
#14987456
SolarCross wrote:Should We Put All the Totalitarians in Gulags?


1. We should always be leery of becoming what we despise in the effort to combat it. Besides, absolute property rights would work out nicely those who wish to undermine them.

2. Gulgags aren't entertaining enough anyway; I have a better suggestion (as also consistent with #1 above):


Image
#14987461
SolarCross wrote:A fair question deserves an honest answer:

totalitarian, noun: an advocate or practitioner of totalitarianism

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian

totalitarianism noun:
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... itarianism

I am going with the standard definitions.



Fabians are literally worse than hitler


Now, that you have defined the word, please answer the question:

Who do you consider a totalitarian?
#14987473
Victoribus Spolia wrote:We should always be leery of becoming what we despise in the effort to combat it.


This is a general truth I agree with a lot. It's also something that's very hard for people to do. This kind of falls in line with my phrase "You are what you hate." Sort of... kind of.
#14987536
Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, that you have defined the word, please answer the question:

Who do you consider a totalitarian?


Those who fit the standard definitions, obviously. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc. Luckily there aren't too many anymore, Kim Jong Il and that Chinese one whose name I can't be bothered to look up is all that is left of that perverse strain. Actually there probably are a few others.
#14987541
Only if you put them to the good of the nation working against the common enemy.
Poorly resourced labor camps are to be inspired by a hatred of the enemy who has killed our countrymen, destroyed its cities and sought to eradicate us from the face of the earth.
It is part of our struggle for existence against the fascist and everyone, even traitors must serve the motherland!
#14987543
Well prisons are like mini-gulags, locking up problematic people doesn't seem to be completely avoidable (sadly) even for normal humans. A relatively free society is one where the majority of normies lock up a minority of crims while a totalitarian society is where the minority of crims locks up the majority of normies.
Last edited by SolarCross on 12 Feb 2019 02:28, edited 1 time in total.
#14987545
SolarCross wrote:Those who fit the standard definitions, obviously. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc. Luckily there aren't too many anymore, Kim Jong Il and that Chinese one whose name I can't be bothered to look up is all that is left of that perverse strain. Actually there probably are a few others.


So, excluding dead people, you can only think of one person?

Why not send everyone who, for example, calls for gulags?
#14987546
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, excluding dead people, you can only think of one person?

Why not send everyone who, for example, calls for gulags?

Totalitarians are a hive society like ants, strictly speaking only dear leader (the queen bee) is an actual person the rest are just appendages.
#14987569
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think people who advocate for gulags are totalitarian?
Do you think that people who dehumanize whole groups of people are totalitarian?

I think as the human population grew exponentially over the last few centuries there just wasn't quite enough human and higher animal souls for all the human bodies being produced so some ant souls got prematurely bumped up into human bodies to fill the gap. These ant souls weren't ready to become as big and powerful as a human individual and so they kind of hate humans and want to go back to being ants. Totalitarianism is just the political expression of these ant souls in human flesh suits trying to be ants again. It is not like they want gulags, what they want is to be an ant hive, but all those pesky humans keep getting in the way with their filthy human individualism and so they have to create gulags and deathcamps as a coping mechanism.

Arguably you don't have to be an ant to imprison and kill your enemies.
#14987570
I'm wondering why this was put in a ''Libertarian'' thread? :eh:

But hey, I'm not involved in this one really, with all the talk of ''Ant Souls'' and all.

@Verv You sympathize with statists and fascist[…]

Wake up. Your wife is a CIA agent. You might th[…]

EU-BREXIT

I just love the French way of doing politics on t[…]

CO2-output is a sign of wealth, the enviromentalis[…]