Should We Put All the Totalitarians in Gulags? - Page 4 - 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.
#14992315
Pants-of-dog wrote:You openly support dictatorships that have imprisoned, tortured, and killed children without even a trial, simply because they share your ideology.

So, you actually do think we should let totalitarians run around doing what they want.

Also, you do not claim that only people like Pol Pot should be put into gulags. You also claim that all Marxists should be.

This is why I find your whole “we should enact totalitarian policies and imprison and torture innocents in order to protect freedom” schtick to be ironic.


So we agree that the world would be a safer place if Lenin and Pol Pot were physically prevented from doing what they want to do? Good.

#14992325
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not according to free market capitalists like Reagan and Thatcher, who supported the Khmer Rouge.


Two tribes of commie were fighting each other so realpolitik strategy suggests help the weaker of the two to prolong the fight. Divide and conquer. It would have been a different story if they were laying waste to home territory.

#14992326
Whatever rationale you want to use for supporting murderous dictatorships and opposing local sovereignty movements.

I guess that the Vietnamese wanting freedom from French colonialism was so awful that the only moral choice was to support child killers.
#14992329
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whatever rationale you want to use for supporting murderous dictatorships and opposing local sovereignty movements.

I guess that the Vietnamese wanting freedom from French colonialism was so awful that the only moral choice was to support child killers.


At what point have I ever suggested pacifism was an appropriate strategy for dealing with enemies?

I am interested in constructive criticism. If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists? Are we supposed to just let you win? :eh:

As a side note it is interesting that you will lay all the responsibility for the killing fields of cambodia on distant "capitalist" political players who had at best a minor influence while entirely exempting the communists themselves for what they did with their own hands. It is a tacit admission that communists have no more agency than ants.
#14992348
SolarCross wrote:At what point have I ever suggested pacifism was an appropriate strategy for dealing with enemies?

I am interested in constructive criticism. If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists? Are we supposed to just let you win? :eh:

As a side note it is interesting that you will lay all the responsibility for the killing fields of cambodia on distant "capitalist" political players who had at best a minor influence while entirely exempting the communists themselves for what they did with their own hands. It is a tacit admission that communists have no more agency than ants.


I do not think you are debating in good faith.

Have a good day, SolarCross.
#14992417
Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think you are debating in good faith.

Have a good day, SolarCross.


Well I am sorry you are running away from my question. I would really like a peaceful co-existence option is there was one. It is a big old world after all and an even bigger universe, so there ought to be plenty of room for all sorts of weirdoes, even ant people.
#14992433
This thread is the perfect example as to why freedom of religion is so important.

So many on this board can’t seem to get their head around observations and topics that aren’t purely scientific; when in actual fact many of the greatest inventions and technological leaps would have seemed impossible and ‘unverifiable’ to generations of past scientists. Religion allows for the creative juices to flow. To “dream the impossible dream..to reach the unreachable star”

PoFo suffers from a lack of innocent curiosity :hmm:
#14992463
SolarCross wrote:Well I am sorry you are running away from my question. I would really like a peaceful co-existence option is there was one. It is a big old world after all and an even bigger universe, so there ought to be plenty of room for all sorts of weirdoes, even ant people.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
#14992466
@Pants-of-dog

If you have a better suggestion then do please share how can non-totalitarians or non-communists deal with totalitarians or communists?


This is a loaded question? If it is then you are tacitly admitting there is not a peaceful way of coexisting with totalitarians and communists in which case only the weakness of totalitarians could justify anything less than forceful confrontation justified on grounds of self-defence.
#15007060
Pants-of-dog wrote:Who do you consider a totalitarian?

Anyone who wants:

- excessive legislation, especially criminal legislation (pretty much anything that goes beyond "malum in se" deeds that have always been crimes(crimes that result in physical harm that can be confirmed medically, or cause financial/material loss that can be evaluated) + a bunch crimes against the state or imminent threats to public safety(drunk driving, possession of weapons/explosives/etc., espionage/treason, etc.) - there could be a total of about 70-80 deeds criminalized that would more than sufficient for a perfectly functioning society

- special powers, privileges and/or immunity for cops, prosecutors, judges

- any other kind of restriction against persons other than preventive arrest(which should only be used in exceptional circumstances)

- any punishment other than prison(for serious crimes) or fines(which should be reasonable)

- disproportionate sentencing (for example more than 5yrs for non-violent crime, more than 15yrs for anything other than murder, terrorism with deaths, treason/espionage)

- state surveillance (public cctv, lack of anonymous pre-pay services for telecom/internet, any kind of retention data, KYC-like procedures for banking or other financial services)

- the state offering public info on criminal convictions and/or keeping criminal records (with perhaps some extraordinary exceptions related to employment in security or other sensitive areas - they could keep some data without any details related to the crimes committed, for example "should not be employed")
#15007151
ccdan wrote:Anyone who wants:

- excessive legislation, especially criminal legislation (pretty much anything that goes beyond "malum in se" deeds that have always been crimes(crimes that result in physical harm that can be confirmed medically, or cause financial/material loss that can be evaluated) + a bunch crimes against the state or imminent threats to public safety(drunk driving, possession of weapons/explosives/etc., espionage/treason, etc.) - there could be a total of about 70-80 deeds criminalized that would more than sufficient for a perfectly functioning society

- special powers, privileges and/or immunity for cops, prosecutors, judges

- any other kind of restriction against persons other than preventive arrest(which should only be used in exceptional circumstances)

- any punishment other than prison(for serious crimes) or fines(which should be reasonable)

- disproportionate sentencing (for example more than 5yrs for non-violent crime, more than 15yrs for anything other than murder, terrorism with deaths, treason/espionage)

- state surveillance (public cctv, lack of anonymous pre-pay services for telecom/internet, any kind of retention data, KYC-like procedures for banking or other financial services)

- the state offering public info on criminal convictions and/or keeping criminal records (with perhaps some extraordinary exceptions related to employment in security or other sensitive areas - they could keep some data without any details related to the crimes committed, for example "should not be employed")


That addresses authoritarianism more than totalitarianism. Both are authoritarian but the totalitarian state imposes a rigid ideology and invades every aspect of private life.
#15008909
Rancid wrote:Deep down, we are all totalitarians.

No, we're not all totalitarians. But it's quite possible that most people are.

Sivad wrote:That addresses authoritarianism more than totalitarianism. Both are authoritarian but the totalitarian state imposes a rigid ideology and invades every aspect of private life.

I don't think so.

Authoritarianism/Dictatorship is mostly concerned with imposing various things in a non-democratic manner. But that doesn't imply that the population will lose too many individual liberties(the main exception being political freedom - which for most people doesn't matter anyway).

Totalitarianism on the other hand is the imposition of (too) many restrictions and regulations, even when it happens in a democratic context. Also, totalitarian countries have very aggressive judicial systems and police forces that can commit lots of abuses with little to no fear of accountability - a prime example of such a country being the US.

Much of the confusion regarding totalitarianism comes from the fact that the US and some other western countries are busy spreading a lot of propagada that seeks to indoctrinate people with false/wrong ideas about democracy, liberty, security and a few other things, for example they try to promote the idea that "democracy" would somehow prevent "totalitarianism" due to the alleged possibility that people can get involved and change the "system" if they don't like it. But that's verifiably false, and all the evidence(the ever increasing number of criminal laws, ever increasing power of the police, prosecutors and judges&their lack of accountability) proves the contrary: DEMOCRACY as we know it is a SURE PATH TOWARDS TOTALITARIANISM!
#15008989
Let's put all conservatives in gated communities surrounded by minefields.

Let's put all liberals in skyscraper condos rising above coastal cities flooded by global warming.

Let's put all libertarians on plantations picking cotton.

Let's put all evangelicals on plantations as overseers guarding the libertarians.

Let's leave all fascists in place to inherit the hell we've created.
#15041672
While I think OP is most likely joking, I'm going to say the answer should be a definite no. One should not emulate totalitarianism in the name of fighting totalitarianism. Barring them (totalitarians) from public office, and law enforcement, as well as prosecution of the totalitarians who resort to terrorism through the regular justice system, should be enough.

@blackjack21 this is your opportunity to argue yo[…]

@jimjam is watching it though No, I quote other[…]

Given I have been studying extensively into cyber-[…]

Jewish Psychology is a bit weird, but they also ne[…]