Let's all hope that extremism of all kinds slowly erodes and dies out, so that parties like the Liberal and the Conservative win.
I'm joking. Only the liberals must win.
I'm joking. Only the liberals must win.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Let's all hope that extremism of all kinds slowly erodes and dies out, so that parties like the Liberal and the Conservative win.
I'm joking. Only the liberals must win.
I would be happy with a Lib-Con dichotomy. Indeed, I'd happily welcome a moderate, Attleeite labour into a three-party system. Winning all the time would get boring, don't you think?
I would support such a government only if social justice, individual freedoms and democracy would be kept as the coalition's primary goals.I would be happy with a Lib-Con dichotomy. Indeed, I'd happily welcome a moderate, Attleeite labour into a three-party system. Winning all the time would get boring, don't you think?
Question, how well can both social justice and individual freedoms be achieved at the same time?
Wouldn't increasing social justice require some losses of individual freedoms, as it requires more state action prevent 'injustice'?
While some of you may be tired of my critique of socialistic virtues, I'm still not the fiercest 'spammer' here...
It's not a critique if there is no debate.
That said, the Liberal party is a great way to achieve both
That said, the Liberal party is a great way to achieve both
We need to find a balance between social justice and limiting the individual freedoms. While invidual freedom is a right throughout the world, it has it's limits even on it's own in an organised society, no matter what kind of society. On the other hand, while social justice is good, an extensive system of social justice is just as harmful as a society without limit on the freedom of it's population. In the end, the only thing we know is that both extreme ends are bad, and it is balance that we must strive for.
(( How did you find that thing? I would like to know how to find it as well ))
No one ever said you were spamming, as far as I'm aware. It'd just be appreciated of you toned down the dogma somewhat.
Also, counting every single post in this thread as "spam" is really quite harsh in my view – and that's not just because I'm the second highest "spammer" here.
Indeed. After all, while theorising the perfect way to govern might indeed be based on noble intentions by both sides, in the end it only destroys us by putting us in a vicious cycle of political apathy and endless discussions. Instead, we must take actions through the democratic means that we can use ( e.g. our votes) in order to see what's best and later on improve or maybe even altogether change our ways of governing through gradually, if something went really wrong.
((Thanks Densley))
There is a difference between activity and spamming Enewald. As well no one said you spammed, just that you don't think, only spew rhetoric.
Go the forum this thread is in, click on the amount of posts this thread has, you will see who posted and how many times.
Everything good has been created by free individual men, out of chaos was a spontaneous order born.
The whole concept of social justice is a late product of a few intellectual minds who think the society should be run how they plan it would be more efficient and fair.
It is cool to talk about 'social justice' for now, one day we get another trend. The more social justice the state bestows us, the more liberties it must take away from us. Once we start tolerating the state limiting too much of our liberties, we are getting closer towards a totalitarian state; we should have learned that from WW2.
Mussolini and Hitler came into power by promising social justice. Neither of them promised more liberties for the individuals.
Also Dadarian, if the last 5 pages are not debate, then what is?
I agree with what you Mr. Enewald just said about Mussolini and Hitler, but I do believe that what you just mentioned is what I also answered to your previous question. Political apathy from the population can lead to the situation you described. That is why it must use it's democratic means to keep the state in check when needed.
Quoting this from the previous page.
I'm willing to debate other election topics too. It just happens to be that economics is the study acting men, and most of what we can discuss eventually boils down to somewhat economic discussions. You want more government intervention, I want less. Somehow I'm mostly alone with my views debating a larger number of people promoting more regulation.
But fear not, for I shall go to my bed to read more of Mises.
Well, I believe my mind is made up now. With the Right Honourable Mister Attlee no longer standing for candidacy as Prime Minister, and the Labour Party turned into a caricature of its former self, I find that I shall abandon the Communists and their ilk and join my kith in the Liberal Party. Let us pray that we lead Great Britain to a glorious new future, away from the tyranny of radicals and lunatics.
It was interesting and enlightening to see what your view point actually is. Other than that I have no idea what it was xD.
- Status