a thought?

Prince

Prince

Active member
i am opposed to all forms of goverment so dont call me a commie with what im about to say allright:p
i was thinking, the western countries are all about freedom and the spread of democrocy yeah? so if they are for freedom why do they go to places (ie: iraq afghan) and try to spread democracy?? the comunists did the exact same thing!! they went from country to country spreading comunism, and yet the west condemed them? that is a real contradiction in my opinion

if they realy wanted to do good shouldnt they go to africa and do more to help the poor people there. there are genocides happening as we speak. poverty, mellnourishment and early death, wars, tribal fighting?

im not saying its right and im not saying one form of goverment is better than the other, im just saying isnt it a bit hipocritical?
please dont attack me on this i just thought it'd be an interesting debate :)
 
Last edited:
Your post is so confusing and immature on so many levels that I'm not even going to justify it by answering it. Try here first: www.wikipedia.org

To get you started, being opposed to all forms of government does not make you a "commie." It makes you an anarchist or pseudo-anarchist depending on how much you understand about anarchy itself.
 
ASTRALdragon said:
Your post is so confusing and immature on so many levels that I'm not even going to justify it by answering it. Try here first: www.wikipedia.org

To get you started, being opposed to all forms of government does not make you a "commie." It makes you an anarchist or pseudo-anarchist depending on how much you understand about anarchy itself.
Click to expand...


as i said dont attack me, its only a debate mate.
if you see holes in it please by all means point it out :)
 
phoenix80 said:
Do you believe communism is equal to western liberal democracy?
Click to expand...

i am impervious on the subject of goverments. i dislike all forms of goverments because in the end all men are imperfect and thus no man can rule over another in any way and satisfy everyone.

the subject is hipocracy though. democracy's denouncing another form of goverment and then going and doing the same thing themselves.
also if a country invades another and sets up "democracy" is it truely democracy as it stands for, if the goverment was not set up by the people of that country themselves?

i am merely pointing a few things out, and as i said feel free to correct me, but do so in a manner where it is freiendly to recieveing comments in return.
i dont want an argument here i just want a passive debate
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Think about freedom. Not government, but freedom. Now think about the exact opposite. Thats Western Democracy vs. Communisim(in its varying degrees). Now, we(the West) feel that spreading democracy is justified because EVERYONE wants freedom. Maybe not total anarchy, but freedom to do things that Communism would prevent. Thats why, and most of the world agrees with us, that spreading democracy is allowed.
 
Hmm,this is a difficult question.
I say ”national interest”　and read　the Prince by Machiavelli.
Saddam Hussein　was ignorance　about American reaction.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Think about freedom. Not government, but freedom. Now think about the exact opposite. Thats Western Democracy vs. Communisim(in its varying degrees). Now, we(the West) feel that spreading democracy is justified because EVERYONE wants freedom. Maybe not total anarchy, but freedom to do things that Communism would prevent. Thats why, and most of the world agrees with us, that spreading democracy is allowed.
Click to expand...

To be honest I think his question is more philosophical than procedual though in essence are you actually free if freedom is imposed, it all becomes a very chicken or the egg argument.

Unfortunately I dont think it will ever be possible to get a concensus on this one because it becomes a battle of ideologies.
 
I guess I'll have to vote for the government which guarantees the most freedoms even with drawbacks such as a loss of some security. I don't want to be killed because of my choice of religion, place of birth or societal status. I don't care for unbridled search and seizure or arrest without a law to back it up. I don't want my source of protection taken away from me even if it may be taken away and used on me, at least I'll have a fighting chance.

If this sounds like a democratic republic, then that's what I prefer. I'm not looking for a perfect government but I will settle for one that's as close as possible.
 
C/1Lt Henderson said:
Think about freedom. Not government, but freedom. Now think about the exact opposite. Thats Western Democracy vs. Communisim(in its varying degrees). Now, we(the West) feel that spreading democracy is justified because EVERYONE wants freedom. Maybe not total anarchy, but freedom to do things that Communism would prevent. Thats why, and most of the world agrees with us, that spreading democracy is allowed.
Click to expand...


anyway as MontyB said, are you realy free if freedom is imposed upon you and not by your choice?
 
The Cooler King said:
Now that is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Freedom can not be imposed upon anyone. It is our natural right. Freedom can only be taken away.
Click to expand...

To a large degree you are correct but as long as someone has the capacity to remove your freedoms are you free.

There is no doubt that the people want to be free but in reality we are really only free to support the system that grants us the most freedoms otherwise you end up a rebel.
 
MontyB said:
To a large degree you are correct but as long as someone has the capacity to remove your freedoms are you free.
Click to expand...

You are free until someone takes away your freedom. That's the bottom line. We are all born free and we remain free until someone takes our freedoms away.
 
The Cooler King said:
You are free until someone takes away your freedom. That's the bottom line. We are all born free and we remain free until someone takes our freedoms away.
Click to expand...

Which was my point to begin with, its a "which came first the chicken or the egg" argument I dont believe there is really any right or wrong answer to this one.
 
yes, you can truly be free if freedom is forced upon you. you are free to move to a place where they take your freedom away, if you want to. example: i live in america where i am free. with my freedom i make the choice to move to north korea, where i will not be free.
 
MontyB said:
To a large degree you are correct but as long as someone has the capacity to remove your freedoms are you free.

There is no doubt that the people want to be free but in reality we are really only free to support the system that grants us the most freedoms otherwise you end up a rebel.
Click to expand...


too right.

anyways, is it freedom if you are forced to support a goverment you dislike? an example :

in australia you are made to vote, if you refuse to vote you get fined (this has happened to me and my family) now...even when i do vote i have to vote for someone i do not trust and that i dislike as both a person and a leader.
that person is our current pm. but i acnowlage..there are no other reasonable candidates for the job so well...ui gotta go with whats allready in place.

is that freedom? i dont think so.
as was said, we have to go with the system that grants the most freedom because nobody can be 100% free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top