Join the new world

[removed]

erdoni HAHA

I will not serve in a cabinet with self proclaimed PTOers. I do not accept.

I'm not invited in the cabinet? But why... and i want to be in so much... WTF?!
😡 😡 😡

LOL A slovenian turk minority guy has something to say x D
Türkmüsün? YOK! : P

MH48 - where is your article ?

Ein gesunde Mischung aus lauter höchst verschiedenen Charakteren. Unfähige, offene und versteckte Hipplörsympathisanten, eine harmlose Pferdchenliebhaberin und ganz zuletzt ein vermeintlich Vernünftiger, der jedoch nichts gegen die obigen unternehmen will.

Sein Programm wurde ja schon früher als dilettantisch entlarvt:
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-en-hu-president-candidate-eln-ouml-ki-jel-ouml-l-eacute-s-2018531/1/20

xdxm raises an interesting question. MH48 wrote a eulogy on some French SS-men who kept fighting even after Germany had capitulated. In the comments he declares them heroes for fighting against Communism. He doesn't see the irony of supporting one totalitarian system against another one and fails to give reasons to why he thinks Soviet Communism and National Socialism are fundamentally different, despite modern historical scientists seeing them very similarly.

Now the article is deleted. I hope he didn't try to remove evidence and it only got deleted by the admins, giving him some forfeit points in the process

Yeah, i got FP, becouse its allowed to write articles about red scum, but not about those who defended Europe to the last bullet : )

XdxMx where is your history? OOoops

Defend Europe from what? One party rule? Destruction of rights and privacy? Attacks on minorities? Cults of personality? Destruction of the free market? Destruction of the free press? You still haven't explained how they were opposites, and not actually very similar. Perhaps you will take this opportunity now.

Free market dont make jokes, today hungary is suffering from that. There should be no parties, parties are bad becouse they split nations into parts, i dont understand attack on minorities its still happening like it was happening just in Europe in the time, press was in the hands of you-know-who so making government press was better and more free then the press before it.

When soviets came in they left once in 1956 but came back in force and destructed Budapest and other smaller cities for

second time in 10 years...

Massacred civilians becouse of their nationality, it was bad to be a hungarian in hungary.

Totalian rule can be good if the leader is good, like the democracy can be bad if the leader is bad, so stop blaming the totalitarian rule.

Personally, I would never vote for someone who sees no problem with totalitarian rule. Looks like giving up all your rights and hoping someone else keeps them safe for you. Not a good deal.

azért érdekes,hogy ezek a senkik olvassák a kuruc lapokat: )

None of this explains how they were opposites. In fact it just supports the argument that they were quite similar: you concede they were both totalitarian systems. Both opposed the free market, both endorsed open attacks on minorities, both had total control of the media.

A key problem with totalitarian systems is the problem with any government: power corrupts and attracts people who want to misuse it. When the power is absolute, it can be absolutely misused.

Within a republic (more accurate term than democracy), there are limitations to this power (so long as they are aggressively held to) which will serve as protections for the people. If your entire argument boils down not to the danger of totalitarianism, but simply which despot was better at wielding unlimited power, its hardly a compelling case that they were opposites. And as shown by the results, they were not opposites at all.

Really low historical and political knowledge is showed in your arguments, who am i to tell you whats are the opposites if you have been brainwashed by the media.

Certainly, everyone else is wrong and brainwashed by evÖl conspirators, whereas you are right. It's always this way. Case closed. MH48 saves the day.

Thank you, i agree : )

Who would you be? You would be someone who is confident in his own beliefs if you were willing to explain them, and show how it was "low historical and political knowledge." Instead I just see repeated cop-outs and probably accidental agreement from you in earlier postings where you admit they both were totalitarian.

Democracy we have today, is the worst totalitarism ever.

"The greatest form of control is where you think you're free when you're being fundamentally manipulated and dictated to. One form of dictatorship is being in a prison cell and you can see the bars and touch them. The other one is sitting in a prison cell but you can't see the bars but you think you're free."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tds0s9EbEjo

"The greatest hypnotist on the planet Earth is an oblong box in the corner in the room. It is constantly telling us what to believe is real. If you can persuade people that what they see with their eyes is what there is to see you've got them. Because they'll laugh in your face of an explanation then which portrays the big picture of what's happening... and they have."

Yes, PR0T11 o7

Its absolutely true that there can be a tyranny of the majority - why would it be better when the majority of a nation can abuse its power over a minority? It's not. That is why in a republic, there are supposed to be limitations against what the government can do: ie, inalienable rights which cannot be legislated away. These limits do not exist at all in totalitarianism. Where there are shortcomings in a republic, people can stand up to them. In totalitarianism there is no such check.

Its also worth noting that the ability for people to make videos like the one you link to rest entirely on the fact we do not live in a totalitarian system - alternative views, even conspiracy theories are quite easy to find and discuss.

VOTE!!!!

@Rangeley: the problem with your limitations are that those limitations are not real. They're there because the society, your 'majority' wants them to be there. It's just information, it can be erased or just neglected. What matters is what's in the heart of the people. If the majority and minority can coexist in symbiosis and harmony, they will find a way to maintain their good relations and overcome the difficulties. If either party be it the minority or the majority abuses the other one,

and the people realize that, it won't matter what's written in the constitution, because as a wise fictional character once sai😛

Peace is a lie, there's only passion,
Through passion I gain strength...

And who has the power will triumph and a new covenant will be made. history taught us to fear the power of war but it didn't make us better people. And true harmony cannot be reached by correct laws, but only by correct people. Until then who has the power to control the masses, rules.

The powerful can dictate, and even enslave the majority to its own purposes, and THAT is the law, because it's not the law of man, but the law of nature. You shouldn't protect minorities from people by laws but achieve mutual respect and harmony. Laws should be used to deal with extremities. Murderers, abusers, scammers, not to influence the mind of people or 'put them to their places'.

Hungary and all of Europe suffers from the dogmatic views on minorities, the colonization etc.

true freedom cannot be based on taboos.

Sorry for the long post : )

hmm, didnt your parents tell you to ask people first before posting them on your "deam team" wall?

Huge FAIL as usual

Simplier said, the real democracy cannot be built on "freedom of speech" when at the same moment people criticising the system are being sentenced for many years of prison. The real democracy cannot declare equality between races and nations, while at the same moment minor ethniq group doesnt have to work, doesnt have to pay taxes and insurence, and still getting more monthly "salary" on social aid than white working and taxes paying citizen..And when it comes to criminality, theres enormous

difference. You think its not your problem right now, who cares... ?! Well one day, it will be your problem, when one unnamed minority will be your neighbour too,, then there will be noone who could help you anymore.

Der Zirkus 'Kuruc' ist seit neuem auf Welttournee, derzeit bringen sie mit ihren belächelten Auftritten das österreichische Volk zum Staunen. Mit kecken Rassismussaltos, gelenkigen Pädophanten und herumtollenden Naziclowns die unter der Fuchtel von Dompteur Herr Emerrich das Publikum mit schrägen Slowakeiwitzen zum Kichern bringen, machen sie sich vor allem bei Paprikagourmets beliebt. Ein Spektakel für Ewiggestrige und Hirnamputierte!

Its true that limits are only as good as they are followed - but this is also true about any law, any order, any sort of power. A law can be passed, an order can be given, but what if noone follows it? An example of this can be seen with Ceausescu's last televised speech in Romania. While the crowd would usually follow along with instruction, cheering when asked, this time the crowd turned against him. You can even see his stunned expression - before the camera is moved away and the feed is cut.

You say the powerful “can dictate, and even enslave the majority to its own purposes,” - but this misunderstands “power.” Despite decades of oppression, despite secret police and torture, despite brainwashing, despite fear of repercussions, all throughout the eastern bloc regimes fell interally. In many cases even those in the government had lost faith in the system; the small decision by the Berlin Wall guards not to open fire ensured that it fell when it did.

So with all this said, how should a system be established then? I find it ironic to see you argue that laws should not be used to make people better, and should only deal with extremes. This is a limit on government power - one I agree with really. Totalitarianism on the other hand, has no limits - draws no boundaries. How you behave personally is their business. What you believe is their business.

We are definitely not free of intrusions today - in some countries as you and Pr0t11 note, it is illegal to say certain views deemed “extreme.” This is silly to me - we don’t have free speech to talk about the weather; it is supposed to be for controversial views. In others, government “help” to certain groups actually disenfranchises them further, and unintentionally leads to even more problems. In others, essential rights are curbed to "fight terrorism."

If you oppose these things, the solution isn't to give the government even more power - to include it in even more aspects of life in a totalitarian system.

@Rangeley: you clearly misunderstood me, if you think I'm arguing FOR more power for govermental bodies. I guess it's my fault that I haven't clarified that there's two different issues.

Firstly: the authorization.

It's imho a practical issue: who much power should we give to our leaders. I don't think totalitarianism is the answer, because people shouldn't give away the power to govern themselves. Hobbes states in the Leviathan that people subdue to an absolute monarch to guarantee

their safety. This monarch embodies all the power that comes from its subject. Its word is the law, and everyone should follow its orders. All the interpersonal issues can supervised and if necessary run by it or its appointed officers. The purest form of totalitarianism. Mind that it doesn't mean it actually HAS TO interfere in every issue, not even by it's 'extensions' - viz the government- because in lots of cases it's more _efficient_ to let people to sort out their issues.

So the totalitarian government _gives_ free space to people to run their lives, maybe even limited or not so limited political powers -regional governmental bodies can be elected and supervised by the local community, making it pure democracy in the confines of the region, as long as they are subjected to the higher authority on the national/imperial level-, or they can even run a free market society within some kind of regulations of course. The point is the center of the political force field

has the right to overpower any other entity, even the whole state and it's people respectively, but it doesn't even to fix what's not broken and people can have their business run their lives as long as they concur with the plans of the monarch, if not it intervenes and changes the status quo.

Despite the theory in reality we see that totalitarian systems tend to control everything and became paranoid. It's related to why I think it's only a viable model if one proviso is met:

the monarch should be a deity.

Or at least some sort of relatively extremely overpowered being. Because if its power originates from nature not by the authorization of its subject it won't be looking actively to power itself by controlling every single issue to maintain its superiority. Thus it can be the benevolent absolute monarch that makes totalitarianism an alluring society.

Sorry to bring up MLP, but it's strongly related. In the MLP there're two absolute monarchs governing as

co-regents and their power originates from nature. They control viable aspects of the physical world and that's why they must be trustworthy and utterly incorruptible, because if they're not their pure existence can be a liability for the society. When one of them became corrupted the other had to stop her and it's the main conflict of the pilot of the series. And that shows how important it is to such a nexus of power must be superethical and superdisciplined.

My point with this that at the

moment there's no person fit for such a role because we're all people. Equal in the sense that some of us way more important than others but none of us has such natural abilities that would make him/her essential to society. There're engineers and scientists who have unique introspection into the physical and instrumental world but even they've just a little share of the common knowledge and while they are important to society more than anyone else they don't have a fundamental role as a person.

We don't have to actively seek for their successors. For example if Celestia dies the ponies have to find somepony to control her stellar body. If, and when Stephen Hawking dies we don't need another Stephen Hawking. New physicists will come and they will continue his life's work use his thesis and make a new synthesis without an actual succession.

So as long we can't build some supercomputer maybe or won't be discovered by benevolent superintelligent beings we have to govern ourselves.

And to do so, and to ensure that the officials we appointed won't abuse their power we need limitations of power. Because we do not need a Leviathan, we need a controlled and balanced system like Montesquieu's . And to record the architecture of the state we as a society as a community find favorable we can use a constitution. But it's not by all means a liberal constitution.

In the liberal view there're issues that are simple not on the imaginary table. Not just the inalienable rights

but the liberalism is a conception about the very architecture of the society and the government. It's an ideology and in liberal democracy this ideology is held as sancrosanct and the parts of the constitution that refers to these ideological key issues are not be modified, because if they're deleted or altered to adapt the law to a new situations it won't be a liberal democracy anymore. When a supreme/constitutional court repels laws and bills according to the 'spirit of the constitution' then