Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

At what point would a country be totalitarian

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

In my opinion, the term authoritarian/totalitarian is throw around too loosely, but I do agree that there are certain European countries, (and the US to a point), that are turning towards authoritarianism. I mean, most young kids nowadays are unwittingly authoritarian, I would say the balance between young libertarian intellectuals and young authoritarian intellectuals is pretty even.

I would consider a country authoritarian if they intervened on things that directly affected the power of the government (i.e gun rights undermines power of gov't, in most authoritarian gov'ts there would be no gun rights), free speech would also be severely limited, you would probably be persecuted only for threatening to rebel or for threatening to subvert the government. Freedom of religion would vary, some authoritarian regimes have been pretty tolerant on that issue, some not. Economy would probably be socialist or communist.

A totalitarian state would probably be extremely collectivist, they would have a vision for how someone's life should be (in every aspect from social, religious, sexual, etc), and they would enforce that they can get people to be as close to their ideal image of a person as possible. I.e society would be extremely collectivist. They would probably persecute any organized protesters, and most free speech. The state would probably sponsor a religion that everyone must follow. The state would either be socialist, bordering on communist, or full fledged communist. Obviously no gun rights. The government would probably control any major aspect of your life.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:56:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:46:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

In my opinion, the term authoritarian/totalitarian is throw around too loosely, but I do agree that there are certain European countries, (and the US to a point), that are turning towards authoritarianism. I mean, most young kids nowadays are unwittingly authoritarian, I would say the balance between young libertarian intellectuals and young authoritarian intellectuals is pretty even.

I would consider a country authoritarian if they intervened on things that directly affected the power of the government (i.e gun rights undermines power of gov't, in most authoritarian gov'ts there would be no gun rights), free speech would also be severely limited, you would probably be persecuted only for threatening to rebel or for threatening to subvert the government. Freedom of religion would vary, some authoritarian regimes have been pretty tolerant on that issue, some not. Economy would probably be socialist or communist.

Power for what though? It's already recognized that the state has a monopoly of laws and considered a legitimate force. It's also already recognized that the state can own certain weapons that normal citizens cannot. Example, you can't own nuclear weapons, automatated weapons, RPGs, tanks, drones, and so forth. So why are guns any different. An armed rebellion could not take on the strength of a military, with there current stock of weapons. Hell, al queda had rpgs and automated guns and they still got destroyed by the US military.

A totalitarian state would probably be extremely collectivist, they would have a vision for how someone's life should be (in every aspect from social, religious, sexual, etc), and they would enforce that they can get people to be as close to their ideal image of a person as possible.

Law by definition is what is done to restrict human actions through the use of force.

I.e society would be extremely collectivist. They would probably persecute any organized protesters, and most free speech. The state would probably sponsor a religion that everyone must follow. The state would either be socialist, bordering on communist, or full fledged communist. Obviously no gun rights. The government would probably control any major aspect of your life.

So this would be a state you'd rebel against. What if it turned out that everyone was happier from this arrangement than? Why would this be wrong?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 2:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean students are already forced into state-run education camps until the age of 16. I don't see how that isn't already an example of the state trying to control and influence your life. That seems to me like the non-ideal society you are referencing towards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:11:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:56:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:46:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

In my opinion, the term authoritarian/totalitarian is throw around too loosely, but I do agree that there are certain European countries, (and the US to a point), that are turning towards authoritarianism. I mean, most young kids nowadays are unwittingly authoritarian, I would say the balance between young libertarian intellectuals and young authoritarian intellectuals is pretty even.

I would consider a country authoritarian if they intervened on things that directly affected the power of the government (i.e gun rights undermines power of gov't, in most authoritarian gov'ts there would be no gun rights), free speech would also be severely limited, you would probably be persecuted only for threatening to rebel or for threatening to subvert the government. Freedom of religion would vary, some authoritarian regimes have been pretty tolerant on that issue, some not. Economy would probably be socialist or communist.

Power for what though? It's already recognized that the state has a monopoly of laws and considered a legitimate force. It's also already recognized that the state can own certain weapons that normal citizens cannot. Example, you can't own nuclear weapons, automatated weapons, RPGs, tanks, drones, and so forth. So why are guns any different. An armed rebellion could not take on the strength of a military, with there current stock of weapons. Hell, al queda had rpgs and automated guns and they still got destroyed by the US military.

It doesn't matter, people despise war because it causes collateral damage to innocent people. This is why terrorists in foreign countries enjoy it when we use brutal displays of power to affirm our authority, it turns even more people against us. If too many people fight the government, it would be illogical for the government to fight the war against the people because they would have no power if they killed most/all of their subjects.

A totalitarian state would probably be extremely collectivist, they would have a vision for how someone's life should be (in every aspect from social, religious, sexual, etc), and they would enforce that they can get people to be as close to their ideal image of a person as possible.

Law by definition is what is done to restrict human actions through the use of force.

Some objective laws to protect other's right's are logical, other then that any law imposing one's sense of morality on another person is immoral in itself.

I.e society would be extremely collectivist. They would probably persecute any organized protesters, and most free speech. The state would probably sponsor a religion that everyone must follow. The state would either be socialist, bordering on communist, or full fledged communist. Obviously no gun rights. The government would probably control any major aspect of your life.

So this would be a state you'd rebel against. What if it turned out that everyone was happier from this arrangement than? Why would this be wrong?

If even one person was against it, I would say it is wrong. The majority should not impose their moral will on the minority.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:11:37 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:56:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:46:35 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

In my opinion, the term authoritarian/totalitarian is throw around too loosely, but I do agree that there are certain European countries, (and the US to a point), that are turning towards authoritarianism. I mean, most young kids nowadays are unwittingly authoritarian, I would say the balance between young libertarian intellectuals and young authoritarian intellectuals is pretty even.

I would consider a country authoritarian if they intervened on things that directly affected the power of the government (i.e gun rights undermines power of gov't, in most authoritarian gov'ts there would be no gun rights), free speech would also be severely limited, you would probably be persecuted only for threatening to rebel or for threatening to subvert the government. Freedom of religion would vary, some authoritarian regimes have been pretty tolerant on that issue, some not. Economy would probably be socialist or communist.

Power for what though? It's already recognized that the state has a monopoly of laws and considered a legitimate force. It's also already recognized that the state can own certain weapons that normal citizens cannot. Example, you can't own nuclear weapons, automatated weapons, RPGs, tanks, drones, and so forth. So why are guns any different. An armed rebellion could not take on the strength of a military, with there current stock of weapons. Hell, al queda had rpgs and automated guns and they still got destroyed by the US military.


It doesn't matter, people despise war because it causes collateral damage to innocent people. This is why terrorists in foreign countries enjoy it when we use brutal displays of power to affirm our authority, it turns even more people against us. If too many people fight the government, it would be illogical for the government to fight the war against the people because they would have no power if they killed most/all of their subjects.

So it doesn't matter whether the guns are confiscated or not, because all that matters is politics and causing enough people on the rebellion side to die so it wouldn't be worth overtaking them.


A totalitarian state would probably be extremely collectivist, they would have a vision for how someone's life should be (in every aspect from social, religious, sexual, etc), and they would enforce that they can get people to be as close to their ideal image of a person as possible.

Law by definition is what is done to restrict human actions through the use of force.


Some objective laws to protect other's right's are logical, other then that any law imposing one's sense of morality on another person is immoral in itself.

Except what one has a right to becomes problematic.

I.e society would be extremely collectivist. They would probably persecute any organized protesters, and most free speech. The state would probably sponsor a religion that everyone must follow. The state would either be socialist, bordering on communist, or full fledged communist. Obviously no gun rights. The government would probably control any major aspect of your life.

So this would be a state you'd rebel against. What if it turned out that everyone was happier from this arrangement than? Why would this be wrong?

If even one person was against it, I would say it is wrong. The majority should not impose their moral will on the minority.

I'd say in many aspects nations have socialists elements to it. Although, its also interesting to think of the government as providing goods and services, but just in massive bundles, which capitalists businesses can do as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:22:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I mean students are already forced into state-run education camps until the age of 16. I don't see how that isn't already an example of the state trying to control and influence your life. That seems to me like the non-ideal society you are referencing towards.

Oh the horrors of free education! Who do they think they are?!1
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2013 3:56:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 3:22:39 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 5/9/2013 2:58:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I mean students are already forced into state-run education camps until the age of 16. I don't see how that isn't already an example of the state trying to control and influence your life. That seems to me like the non-ideal society you are referencing towards.

Oh the horrors of free education! Who do they think they are?!1

Compulsory and free are two different things buddy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2013 11:58:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

My understanding of the issue of wiretapping is warrant-less wiretapping, where it is done without due process, nor without any valid suspicion. This is EXTREMELY 1984-ish.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Such a situation would resemble stories like how old East German women had nothing better to do than to try to rat out the people around them. The idea is that our government and society have better things to do.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:20:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

I think the New Hampshire Constitution says it best;

"All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness....When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void."

"The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by way of petition or remonstrance, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer."

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 11:30:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Probably when total government spending exceeded 50% of GDP. We haven't reached that threshold yet.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 3:51:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

Do you believe that democratic government is ultimately a reflection of the people's wil?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:13:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:51:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

Do you believe that democratic government is ultimately a reflection of the whatever the majority/plurality manage to agree on?

Yes
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 4:20:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 4:13:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:51:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

Do you believe that democratic government is ultimately a reflection of the whatever the majority/plurality manage to agree on?

Yes

So I take you answer "no" to my original question?
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:23:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/9/2013 2:37:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lot of people make the argument, that government should not be involved in acts like wiretapping. An argument against gun control is that guns should be used to overthrow a government that has gone tyrannical.

Question is at what point do you think that we should be worried about wiretapping because the government has gone tyrannical? Would you argue that it currently exists. Meaning that there are laws you break that you wouldn't want the government to know about and therefore against wiretapping.

I think there are some laws that most of us break w/out even knowing, and some laws that most of us would willingly break (ex: prostitution, gambling, and drug laws). I'm sure whenever you engage in an informal monetary transaction, there's usually some sort of regulation you're not following (ex: Lemonade stands are illegal).

Or is this for cases when the government has done stuff far more evil? If so, what would it have to be?

"Totalitarian" is one of those buzz-word adjectives that finds its way into popular discourse because of fear-mongering zealots (like Glenn Beck), and some conservatives who self diagnose (and by self diagnose, I mean invent and fantasize about) their own disenfranchisement. Generally, an absolute totalitarian government is one in which all or most freedom/liberty is restricted by the force of law such that the state has all control and people have no control. At the opposite end is no state control of anything, which is to say anarchy (the absence of state authority) is the opposite of totalitarianism. To the degree to which a state increases state power, it is increasingly totalitarian. To the degree to which a state decreases its power, it is less totalitarian.

I think a fair argument could be made that increasingly SOME liberties/freedoms are constrained while OTHERS are made more rampant, accessible and democratically tangible. For example, while some individual states may prevent persons under the age of 21 from purchasing weapons (freedom to acquire guns), others may pass legislation preventing some types of restrictions placed on firearm sales. In another instance, while some states may require ISP's to monitor net traffic for pirating activity, other states may pass laws declaring that ISP's may not monitor net traffic because even recording volume constitutes a violation of a person's privacy. The federal government may pass laws restricting the sale of marijuana, but states may not give a fvck (like Colorado). So, issues of federal v. state governments overlapping policy areas, and state v. state, etc. are one area where the extent of the divergence on how liberties are constrained/protected -and likewise offer insight on the extent to which governmental bodies teeter between the extremities of totalitarianism and anarchy.

Am I worried about wiretapping, for example? I'm personally not concerned... anyone listening would have a hoot listening to me talk with my parents, family, etc. But, I can see how a reasonable, law abiding citizen might be because just the knowledge of the possibility of observation is at once unnerving and at the expense of a person's fundamental right to privacy -their right to be left alone. The question, then, is at what point does the state's interest in X overwhelm a person's right to privacy? The standards are different for different circumstances, but usually when there is sufficient evidence that a person is breaking the law, the state's interest in stopping law breaking (in concordance with the parameters of due process) take precedence over an individual's interest in not having their privacy invaded.

I generally get irritated when people (in the United States) start talking about "the government" as if it is some mysterious body over and above mere mortal men, and its "being evil" in any form because of the fact that voters are invariably responsible for all and every failure for government -because voters either elected bad politicians, or failed to elect good ones. That aside, I don't think it's likely that the US will come closer to totalitarianism because of the fact that at some point, the people will have had enough -and some of them might even do something about it. Failed attempts to remedy perceived alienations of liberty/rights/etc. are rampant throughout US history... the Whiskey Rebellion, Nat Turner's terrorist raid (although that is a bit complicated), the election of Andrew Jackson, the Bonus March, the political life of FDR, (the dude who ran against McKinley, whose name I can't remember), the KKK, and even the modern day Tea Party. That is not to say that all examples are morally equitable, but only to say that they all exist for the same reason. If history is any indicator, as long as enough pissed off people feel passionately about something, change is possible for better or worse, though.

But, to say at "what point" a country "would be" totalitarian is problematic because (1) totalitarianism exists in degrees, (2) perceptions differ (one man's safety law is another's violation of the second amendment), and (3) even if we all agree that a law increases state power, that is not to say that the law shouldn't be a law.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 4:20:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 4:13:21 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:51:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

Do you believe that democratic government is ultimately a reflection of the whatever the majority/plurality manage to agree on?

Yes

So I take you answer "no" to my original question?

I don't think the original question can be answered, because there is no 'will of the people' to reflect. There are many people with varying opinions, and you'll find a dissenting opinion to just about anything. It's always the will of some people which are reflected in any government, and in a democracy the opinions which are enforced are those held by a majority or plurality, depending upon the precise political anatomy of said democracy. All in all, I think that 'will of the people' is flowery and inaccurate language which can be abused to make it seem like democracy is some political panacea which lets everyone have their fair say. Not to say that this is your intended meaning, but it is often misconstrued in such a manner.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 6:10:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

For the record I completely understand where you're coming from. It's really just a matter of whether dictatorship is needed (a necessary condition) for the term to be warranted.

Frankly, the I thought the comment might get a rise out of DanT, so...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:55:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 3:51:10 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

Do you believe that democratic government is ultimately a reflection of the people's wil?

In theory, yes. If you believe that in practice, a democracy doesn't, then more than likely whatever it is you are observing is not a democracy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:57:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 6:10:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/11/2013 3:01:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/11/2013 12:26:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Would you argue that it currently exists.

Totalitarianism is just basically dictatorship where the government tries to mold its citizenry in all aspects of their life, it can't exist while we remain a democracy.

Why not?

What if the citizenry of a country wanted the government to dictate all matters of their life?

For the record I completely understand where you're coming from. It's really just a matter of whether dictatorship is needed (a necessary condition) for the term to be warranted.

Frankly, the I thought the comment might get a rise out of DanT, so...

Nevermind then.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?