Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1 Greenies: Democracy must be suspended 
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    From Darth Misha's site

    In this BBC podcast (takes a minute or so to load), the view of green elitists is that we have casus belli. Thus democracy has to be suspended and common sense authoritarianism has to take over – just for a while, until things are put back in their proper order. The general population is just too stupid to understand it, and is only getting in the way. (Actually, and thankfully, they’re too informed and many people understand precisely what this is about). “The situation is urgent, the world is going to hell in a handbasket – let us rescue the planet. Trust us,” we are constantly told.
    "There are times when democracy has to be set aside"

    "Global warming is like a war"


    "We must do these things whether the people like it or not"

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Well, if we couldn't successfully convince people over the past 5,000 years that random sex was destructive and stupid, it's unlikely we can get them to return to subsidence farming and short lifespans just to save some nameless plant or fish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Tecate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    566
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,912
    Jonah Goldberg is right then.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Jonah Goldberg is right then.
    Yes he was - and is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot prevent?

    I think we're basically screwed if:

    1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
    2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
    3) Mitigation comes with a sufficiently high cost.
    4) Mitigation in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
    5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.

    I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. We have to hope that democracy *can* eat the catastrophe, and come out the other side, still standing. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.
    Last edited by wilbur; 05-30-2010 at 09:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot solve?
    None.
    I think we're basically screwed if:

    1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
    Go buy a time machine, go to 2340 and when you get back, report in and let us know what you find. until then, democracy and freedom are the watchwords of this society.

    2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
    "For the duration of the emergency" is the typical ploy used by fascists and would be dictators.

    3) Mitigation has at a sufficiently high cost.
    There is no mitigation in denying the basic freedoms of every individual...and just what freedoms would you deny them?

    Hm?

    4) Corrections in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
    Assuming that the "problem" exists..which it doesnt

    5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.
    Oh, I quite agree, we can start with Gore's lies, then Jones, the IPCC, NASA...all misinformation, all fabrications, all lies to gain money and power.

    "Interested parties" like Al Gore and his ilk...shall we start with THEIR misinformation?

    I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.
    I find it interesting that you of all people are in favour of a dictatorship...you'd just be SOOO happy to see the "deniers" silenced, along with anyone else who dares disagree with the Church of Mother Gaia, wouldnt you, wilbur?

    It GNAWS at you that we peons and plebs have the effrontery to disagree with the "consensus" (another lie since there isnt one) doesnt it?

    That freedom of speech is so pesky, and you'd LOVE to see it removed, wouldnt you?

    To you and your ilk "freedom of speech" is "agree with us or else"
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 05-30-2010 at 09:17 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member warpig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ft. Worth, Texas
    Posts
    1,445
    This idea has been around along time. The think tank Club of Rome, stated such in their book "Limits to Growth" published back in the 70's. They felt that democracy was not a good system of governance going forward and looked for alternative methods. You know like maybe the ol' feudal system. They also felt that the idea of getting the world to have a single adversary, notably the rape of the environment, for the world to focus on would keep us from having wars and bring us all to that big "Michael Row the Boat Ashore" moment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,268
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I think its an interesting question in general: What are the types of catastrophes that democracies cannot prevent?

    I think we're basically screwed if:

    1) The bad consequences of a problem are in the sufficiently distant future.
    2) There is a short window of time where disaster mitigation can be effective.
    3) Mitigation comes with a sufficiently high cost.
    4) Mitigation in the present will be detrimental in the short term, to sufficiently influential interests.
    5) The issue is sufficiently complicated, so that misinformation by interested parties can easily persuade the public.

    I think problems with these characteristics are basically unsolvable by democracy - democracy will just have to eat the catastrophe and hope for the best. We have to hope that democracy *can* eat the catastrophe, and come out the other side, still standing. This doesn't just have to be global warming here.. think of the financial crisis, government spending and borrowing, social security, etc.
    A better question is can science accurately recognize a problem that will occur in the distant future and not invent one in order to supply the salaries of scientists while they work hard to manufacture more evidence in order to maintain their income into the sufficiently distant future?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    nc
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by warpig View Post
    This idea has been around along time. The think tank Club of Rome, stated such in their book "Limits to Growth" published back in the 70's. They felt that democracy was not a good system of governance going forward and looked for alternative methods. You know like maybe the ol' feudal system. They also felt that the idea of getting the world to have a single adversary, notably the rape of the environment, for the world to focus on would keep us from having wars and bring us all to that big "Michael Row the Boat Ashore" moment.
    The mindset of leftist activists amazes me. It's never enough for them to practice their beliefs. They have to change everyone to their way. Self righteousness abounds. They feel sooooo superior. All the while they don't seem to notice Al Gore is getting richer faster than any evil corporate CEO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •