Obama: Court must end California gay marriage ban

in plain English, and it is about pushing collectivism by destroying traditional - and well-serving - sexual role models like "mother" and "father", "man" and "woman" , "male values" and "female values", and of course "family".

So gay marriage is an assault on a "traditional" family like that of Fred West and his devoted wife Rosemary.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No. It is about tax reliefs for married couples, in plain English, and it is about pushing collectivism by destroying traditional - and well-serving - sexual role models like "mother" and "father", "man" and "woman" , "male values" and "female values", and of course "family". "Mothers should not be mothers, but workers to create tax income for the state. Boys and girls are no boys and girls, ut gender-neutral entities that are to be exposed to the collectivistic training of Kindergarden and KITA as early as possible - although the evidence that this medically and psychologically does enormous damage to their later personality development and physical health is overwhelming. Its not by chance that all this mess is pushed by the left, the socialists and communists, not by liberals, libertarians or conservatives, originally.

You read it here first, everyone. Homosexuality is a communist plot to destroy western democracy.

[Skybird]

On the fallacy of liberty and freedom of being oh so wonderful in demicracies:

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Econ...oppe+democracy

I say dmeiocracy is the dictatorship of the mob. It does not create welath and freedom, but rteduces both, and ultimately turns into a socialistic collective were everybody is forced to fit into the collective, and ultimately the inevtiable total breakdown due to the mismanagem,ent of fiance and economy. And this is what we see taking plac ein Europe and America, on all levels, advancing at full speed. Democracy is totlaitarianism of a very xpecial kind. It's opposite is not dictaotrship, but freedom.

For readers capable to read German, I hint to these more compact books, because Hoppe is not always easy to read and the above book is 600 pages. The first is a very well-written, witty and ironic pamphlet of 90 pages by an Ausrtian, the second is a compact busting of the most popular myths about democracy in a more sober format, 180 pages, by two authors from the Netherlands.

http://www.amazon.de/Prolokratie-Dem...2324988&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.de/Wenn-die-Demokr...2324967&sr=8-1

So much for "liberty" and "justice" in democracies. There is a solid reason why it all breaks down for us and turns against us. Bankers and capitalism are just two reasons - and not even the most important ones. And many thinkers and philosphers in the West, back to the times of the ancient Greek, knew about the rotten nature of democracy all too well. To gloss over it and glorify it like we do today is a relatively modern turn in history only. And it holds no solid grounds.


Being busy with these themes and issues since around one and a half year now, as a consequence of the EU having turned that nasty, and observing so much antisocial policies implemented under the infame label of "rights" and "social justice". It all is anything but that. Took me quite some time to see through that. It all looks and tastes and smells too much like GDR-2.0 as if i would be tempted to call this "freedom" anymore. And the material side of it, the so-called "wealth" - gets mismanaged by demand of the mob and falls apart, too. So much for future outlooks.

But we think gay marriage is oh so important an issue, and that family and mother and father means nothing and is purely arbitrary.

We have completely lost our sanity and any reasonable standards. The rest of the world that all so rightfully refuses to follow our self-deconstructing example, will eat us alive.

[Sailor Steve]

It's good to criticize, but what exactly do you propose in its place? Enlightened Dictatorship? By whom?

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

[Tchocky]

I'm starting to think that Skybird really believes this stuff.

No. It is about tax reliefs for married couples, in plain English, and it is about pushing collectivism by destroying traditional - and well-serving - sexual role models like "mother" and "father", "man" and "woman" , "male values" and "female values", and of course "family". "Mothers should not be mothers, but workers to create tax income for the state. Boys and girls are no boys and girls, ut gender-neutral entities that are to be exposed to the collectivistic training of Kindergarden and KITA as early as possible - although the evidence that this medically and psychologically does enormous damage to their later personality development and physical health is overwhelming. Its not by chance that all this mess is pushed by the left, the socialists and communists, not by liberals, libertarians or conservatives, originally.

Seriously? Deciding that we might be better off as a species if we treat each other with more decency is instead a massive leftwing conspiracy to degenderise our children because we know it hurts them. HA HA HA, that'll teach those damn kids to be so happy all the time...

And this is not about democracy, it's about treating decent people decently.

[Skybird]

Steve,

the opposite of democracy is not, as often claimed, dictatorship. The opposite of democracy - is freedom.

The mechanism by which democracy installs the power of governing and administration, is the majority decision. Issues get decided by holding a referendum - directly or indirectly via a parliament, and the majority vote decides (not counting the decisive influence of lobbyism). Or so we think. Heck, you and me have clashed about this very detail in the past! You said that the majority then imposes a supressive regime, a dictating of decisions on the minority, and therefore, in that discussion, you defended the filibuster, which I then attacked as the minority being able to impose its minority opinions on the will of the majority. You remember? I am 90% sure that it was you I had this debate with, mainly on filibustering.

Well, I implied democracy is the opposite of freedom (and vice versa). When the majority decides on the policies of a community (ignoring for now that when you vote for a party every four years, 99,9 of the decisions this party makes in the coming 4 years you do not get asked on), then it is naive to assume that the majority of people does vote anything different than for the way in which to benefit best from other people'S or future generation'S money. Democrats often say „We – the people - want this, we – the people - want to achcieve that“, but what it really means is „I want you to do like I say, and you have to pay for the costs, and your children have to pay for the debts.“ People vote those parties and politicians that make them the biggest promises, and politicians make big problems because they must not finance them but pay them with other people'S money - the tax payers' - and becasue they want to get relected and know they have no chance if they make necessary but unpopular claism aboitu what needs to be done. Populism and corruptions thus are inherent inbuilt features of democracies.

And the question of this „right to vote“. Ortner asks: isn't it strange that for flying an airplane, you need to pass qualification, and for driving a car you need to earn a license – but for casting some influence on the state'S fate, its finances of dozens of trillions, economic policies, highly complicated matters that even experts stuggle to understand, you do not need any intellectual or educaitonal license at all? Every debile retard is allowed to vote, and that is why Ortner calls demicracies prolocracies, a very derogatory term. The tyranny by the mob, the canaille – that is what democracy is. You quoted Churchill (and I thuinbk you do not fully get the meaning of it, btw, it is anything but an ironic defence of democracy).Churchill also said: the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute talk with just any ordinary voter. I assume the strange design of the American election system stems from a founding time when the founding fathers wanted to deal with this problem. I honestely say: not only do I recommend people to boycott elections – I have even reached ground now where I do not support the idea of a general right to vote anymore. It should be banned, and people should need to qualify in intellect and education and information for beign allowed to vote, and they should not be allowed to vote if they only claim benefits from the community, but do not contribute to its wealth. As I think either John Adams or Benjamin Franklin said, quoted by memory: when people find out they can vote for getting money, this will ruin the republic soon.

The majority directly or indirectly votes for, in general, redistribution of wealth. Which is a violation of the protection of private property, leads to tremendous and ever increasing state regulations, taxes growing (they did that in all Westenr states since a hundred years, from below 10% to now 48-55% of ordinary people'S incomes being grabbed by the state), and a state-directed economy. Because people direct more and more demands at the state, and politicians say they meet these demands if only being given more money which then they throw at issues, and making new regulations, and founding a new gremium to oversee the following of these regulations, and so, it all jujst gets worse and worse and costs are ever exploding. Bureaucracy is growing. Taxes are growing, Demands by the people to get nursed are growing, Redistribution of wealth is growing. State regulation of all and everything is growing. ItS' a vicous circle, the canaille is chasing the politicians and gives its vote for getting nannied, and the politicians invite oligarchies and plutocracies and lobbyists, and them alltogether lure the masses by making them more promises – in exchange for giving up more own responsibility and more civil freedoms. We see that loss of freedoms and growth of state control on every social, public and private level in Western countries.

And we do run that race on tick, and have more and more and more debts, and more and more and more printers printing more and more and more FIAT money. To measure the diamter of thew snowball you now need to climb into orbit. Don'T know how wide it is, but I know this snowball has almost reached the peak with a big wall on top.

All this leads to a purely socialist state-run economy and society,, uniformistic, totalitarian, and collectivistic. We see that very strongly in the EU, and in what we call poltiical correctness and poltiical social engineering and genderism as well. The final goal of this developement is a non-sexual, gender-neutral society in communistic hibernism.

It leads to growing collectivism, and in principle one must realise that democracy is a form of cleverly deceived totalitarianism from all beginning on: The majority by the above described things democratically votes for redistribution and growing regulation of the shrinking number of netto payers. That means the shrinking number of netto payers gets forced to accept getting expropüriated more and mroe for the growing numbers of the „canaille“. The European wellfare state is the prime example. But you can also ask on how many things you arte forced to do and how many rules you are forced to follow and how many things is beign done by your state in the name of the people, without you or the people ever having been asked about them.

In establishing and enforcing this collective, where everything and all is only allowed to be just average, grey and featureless, and being and doing better gets punished by getting expropriated by taxes and growing inflation and low interests eating your savings (to pay for the spending excesses of the canaille), the destruction of the social core insitution of „family“ is key. Thus its relativisation in meaning, the eroding of its constitutionally guaranteed protected special status and privileges.

Also, we have a massive demographic problem, our societies are overaging. That means less tax payers who have to paye ever growing burdens. The financial snowballing system is in the process of collapsing, and what desperately is needed to continue with the snowballing a bit longer, are future tax payers: so, women must be returned to tax-generating jobs as fast as possible, and so the work and importance of being a mother gets ridiculed, marginalsied, and over here they now have started to call the term „mother“ a sexual discrimination with polans to even criminalise it (!!!), All this aims at discrediting family, family environment and mothers, to make room for mothers becoming tax-generators and throwing babies into the colletivising machinery as early as possible to train them to become good collective drones, with the wanted party ideology injected into their heads from first birthday on. Big Brother is nursing you. You should know that our union for educational professions is by far the most left-leaning union we have over here.

But we have so much evidence from medical and psychological studies, since the 50s and earlier, that show that it makes a difference, a significant, vital difference to young peoples' personality developement and health whether they have a male and a female role model at home, and get educated in and experience a protected family environment with one father and one mother at home, or get thrown into the stressing situation of a Kindergarden from – as they want it here – first birthday on. There are tremendous changes in the hormones' homoestasis, leading to health problems like asthma and neurodermithis, multiplying risks for later personality disorders or developing psychological symptoms like depressions, and younger studies, so I learned, show growing evidence for significant links with school problems, violence-related problems and concentration deficits at school. Plus, and this is also important, these chnages for several hormones playing a role here have been shown to be hereditary from first generation on. It must not even be stress due to noise, hectic or chaos, but exposition to a too feminised environment (where boys are not allowed to play in boys' way and must obey gentlier and softer according to more „female“ values) already is enough to transport e genetic dispiosiution for testosterone deficits to the direct offsprings one generaiton later.


What should be instead of a democracy? I do not know for sure, but slowly move forward in my views and thinking, especially in the past 1-2 years. Back to regional autonomy is key, away from centralization and superstate structures. Global trading of items that are present in the given local region, must be brought to a stop, such kind of trade is pretty much pointless, but does a lot of damage. As little state as possible there should be. I often have said in the past that imo democracies can only work in the very smallest of small community sizes. What I have read in the past two years, has given me strong support in these views. I refer not only to Hoppe or Ortner, I could also refer to Leopold Kohr or E.F. Schumacher.

For the coordination on higher levels, some sort of feudalism (my words) or monarchy (Hoppe) seems to be the more promsiing model. The canaille today does not care to ruin the states and finances by its demands, because nobody feels responsible for it and nobody owns the material possession of the others for which he claims the right to consume them and live at their cost. If you have nothing at stake, you tend to not care for wasting it. The money spend most pleasantly is the money that is not yours, but theirs. But if you own something, you have an interest to treat it well and manage it so that it is healthy and stable, will blossom and live on, and can be given from generation to generation. Democratic elections breed populism and liars, corrupted leaders and fraudsters. They do not foster and keep and save, they consume, eat it up, and then go into debts. Democracy in no way guarantees that those beign elected are competent or have moral integrity. The claimed superiority of democracy of monarchy here is – non-existent. But the disadvantages are massive: democracies in principle in all the West today are ochlocracies with some capitalistic predators picking some rosins for themselves. We all feel the price coming down on us in these times, we all can see the disaster reaching us that we all have voted to allow unfolding.

Within the democratic framework, There obviously is no chance that we survive this crash heading for us. The democratic framework is what has brought us here.

You know the American history quite well, I got the impression. I must not tell you that the foundign fathers for the most had anything but a positive opion of democracy, and nthat they feared and/or dispised the canaille. And throughout the past 2000 years there have been many thinkers thinking bad of it, and i have come around to finally see the reasons so very clear. Even the ancient Greeks already had immense problems with it, and Plato and Aristotle spoke out against it. In Athens they were so desperate at some time that they replaced democratic elections for offices and posts with a lottery where every male citizen had to participate, in order to battle corruption (which did not function either).

You also may think that I share some ground with the founding fathers. You are right. In fact, I more and more realise that I share very much common ground with their self-understanding, their doubt about the state, and their dislike for democracy. But the US is not like in the early days anymore, it now is more a democracy than a republic basing on the founding principles. Its also a very different kind of population now. And in europe, we turn democratically into a socialist state-directed economy drownming in debts like yours, with growing economic collapse, turning into totalitarian collective being enforced by the left and the EU. I often said there is a democracy-deficit in the EU. That is not really precise. There is a freedom-deficit in the EU, and it becomes worse and worse. Our lives get more and more regulated even on more and more private details. The costs for that become higher and higher, the reason becomes more and more absent, it all turns out to be more and more insane.

I recommend to you the book by Hoppe. He is easily the most uncompromised and merciless attacker and critic of the state in German language, and I understand that he has that reputation in America, too, where he lives. This is a well-founded overkill-callibred frontal attack on the false god of democracy. I share his criticism full-heartly since I learned about Hoppe early last year. With his diagnosis and reasons why he gives it this way and not any other way, I agree. However, his own idea of how to solve the issues, in parts is a bit naive, where he does not hide the typical naivety of the economical liberals who always trust in the self-healing power of the totally unregulated free market (ignoring that the free market seeks monopoles, fsavours greed and selfishness, and seeks said monopoles at the price of consumer-friendly competition). Hoppe has a very optmistic image of man there, I think – and that optimism about mankind I do not share when realising the cold I feel from shadow'S history. Hoppe calls his solution the the private-law society and recommends sezession of small regions to become autark and independant communities with as little superior state regulation as possible. I agree with parts of that too, obviously especially regarding the importance of focussing on local regions instead of states and supra-national govenrment bodies like the EU. All in all, this total economic liberalism is what I have a problem with. Where this has raised its head in our nations of today, it ended in abuse, almost allways, and tax payers needing to pay the bill.

This is just a draft of an idea, I know. You wanted to know what to place in place of democracy. I have no ready-to-use solution, but general ideas, that even ignore chnaging economic cvariables in global markets and demographic problems. But you may get my general direction I look at. But full details I still cannot deliver. Can anyone? I doubt that.

[Cybermat47]

^^^

Anti-democracy, anti-religion and anti-LGBT! You never cease to amaze, Skybird!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

the opposite of democracy is not, as often claimed, dictatorship. The opposite of democracy - is freedom. .

Okay. Remove my suggestion. The question still stands - what form of government would you put in its place?

What should be instead of a democracy? I do not know for sure, but slowly move forward in my views and thinking, especially in the past 1-2 years. Back to regional autonomy is key, away from centralization and superstate structures.

Okay. Now we're getting somewhere. I agree to a point, that point being what I actually understand. I think Jefferson agreed with you on that.

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations."
-Thomas Jefferson; letter to Gideon Granger, August 13, 1800

This is just a draft of an idea, I know. You wanted to know what to place in place of democracy. I have no ready-to-use solution, but general ideas, that even ignore chnaging economic cvariables in global markets and demographic problems. But you may get my general direction I look at. But full details I still cannot deliver. Can anyone? I doubt that.

I know I can't. Thanks for an honest answer.

[Skybird]

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide. - John Adams.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.- Benjamin Franklin

And since above I was not sure whether the quote was by Franklin or Adams, it was Franklin for sure: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic

Regarding a draft for how to replace democracy, not only the aspect of size of community and a mixture of local autarky and supra-regional feudalism is important, but also not to always repeat the same mistakes from the past - but to learn the lessons, finally. I forgot to refer to Jared Diamond again, whose observations on why societies rationally and sometimes even democratically decide to vote for their own collapse. These lessons must finally be learned, to avoid making these mistakes again. I once had a thread launched where I tried to summarise Diamonds conclusions on some things, Link: How to fail in survival for very rational reasons. . Again, the aspect of community sizes show up there. Democratic voteing prinmciples can only play a positive role in the smallest of community sizes: communites that are only so big that every member can oversee what all others are doiujng and how it affects him, and how his own deeds will and does affect all the others. That sets limits to population sizes in a self-governing community. It also demands that their is strict population control, a dynamically fluctuating but all in all stable balance between young and old and a maximum limit that is not allowed to get overstepped. Control of popultion size is not only wantred from an ecological perspective - politically, it also is a must. The chinese understood that correctly - they just concluded wrong consequences from it. I admit I currently have no idea on how to improve their apporoach (which they now give up). When you control population sizes, you need to find a workaround for the aging problem. Or you need to get rid of the exceeding population when the upper community limit has been reached. In thre past, wars and epidemics worked as a natural counterbalance. But these are options that forbid themselves to become accepted tools of population control, obviously.

If somebody has ideas, make it known.Chances are you get one peace Nobel price per year for the rest of your life.

[Betonov]

I declare myself president of the world with a council of elders with Steve, Jim and Neal and also August as the opposition leader. Plus Tribesman for grounding ideas that are too high flying.

[mookiemookie]

We go from marriage equality to musings on the merits of democracy in just two pages. Wow.

[Catfish]

The thing to allow gay marriage, is just a technical vehicle to help a common law marriage have the same legal rights, as one between male and female persons.
If a married m/f couple has certain rights regarding taxes, why should not m/m or f/f couples living together have that.


OT:
Regarding democracy Skybird is closer than you think, our western 'democracies' are not real ones of course.

How can a common man influence the government, or its executive decisions, if all 'parties' have the same programme and offer no alternative. In the US (and Germany) there is no direct referendum possible.



Apart from that you do not need conspiracies to tell that western nations are not really governed by politicians - changing every 4/5 years how do you plan for your country's future. The undeclared drone war is illegal by international and US law, as is the conduct of aggressive wars and killing civilians as an 'unfortunate side effect'.
Secret services do not follow public or international law, and the constitution they claim to work for, often does not even know about their doings.

[Skybird]

98% of decisions a government makes have not been voted on by the people in last general elections. The government creates facts and leaves it to the people to pay for them.

80% of laws in Europe/Germany, are demands by the EU central committee. EU law demands such proposals to be turned into national law, the parliaments have no right to veto them or not to wave them through.

Everyday life is regulated from A to Z and gagged by laws, taxes, and rules, not to mention demands of political correctness and anonymous pressure by the social crowd. With the EU, it is especially bad, deeper and deeper it drills its penetrant nose into the most private business of ordinary citizen and lectures and orders them around. Less salt in bread. Water-saving shower-heads. Accepting policies that you do not want to support, because you get criminalised if you do not embrace them against your opinion. Totalitarianism is absolutely accpetable - if it is on behalf of the left revolution, the Gutmenschentum, the eco-surrogate religion, and so on. Some of the worst verbal excesses and demands for dictatorial supression of people with unwanted vierws, I hear coming from the lips of - not the conservative (if we still have some of them in Germany), but the left and the Green. On behalf of their ideologic goals, every form of dictatorship and supression seems to be acceptable.

And nobody protests against that. They get away with it.

Well. It will collapse, mayb ein ten years, maybe in twenty. The stalelites of the USSR economically were in ruins already in thge early 70s - but then it took another two decades almost to make them fall one by one. So,lk it may take more time then I consider pleasant, but IO am convinced that the EU and the Europe will collapse sooner or later, and necessarily will desintegrate over the clash with reality.

A 3 minute piece with Hoppe on Germany'S fall beginning with the founding of the national state. A nice reminder of what has made German culture, arts and philosophy that great in the world. It was no centralised power. It was - competition between small regions. When that was given up, the decline began.
In English.

[Gerald]

^What has this text in common with gay marriage?,

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Everyday life is regulated from A to Z and gagged by laws, taxes, and rules, not to mention demands of political correctness and anonymous pressure by the social crowd. With the EU, it is especially bad, deeper and deeper it drills its penetrant nose into the most private business of ordinary citizen and lectures and orders them around. Less salt in bread. Water-saving shower-heads. Accepting policies that you do not want to support, because you get criminalised if you do not embrace them against your opinion. Totalitarianism is absolutely accpetable - if it is on behalf of the left revolution, the Gutmenschentum, the eco-surrogate religion, and so on. Some of the worst verbal excesses and demands for dictatorial supression of people with unwanted vierws, I hear coming from the lips of - not the conservative (if we still have some of them in Germany), but the left and the Green. On behalf of their ideologic goals, every form of dictatorship and supression seems to be acceptable.

But aren't you advocating the same thing, albeit at the community as opposed to national level? There is no end to the number of things that you have talked about regulating in the past, and in this thread in particular you have even discussed regulating repoduction, dealing with the 'aging problem', which you left ominously ambiguous, and 'getting rid of the exceeding population'. What you have said is that you want to do away with this (alleged) totalitarianism. What you replace it with is your own brand; a real totalitarianism, but one that suits you.

And all this because you don't like the idea of gay marraige.