Trump: Set to declare 2024 presidential bid tonight; will indictments follow soon?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Labelling someone a troll when that someone has exposed your own position as illogical is a favorite tactic on CT. It doesn't bother me in the least, because it is a sign of pure weakness.

"Ohhh... I've been proven wrong...." (typing furiously) .... "You Nasty Troll!"

None of it matters, because Libertarianism is never going to become the political system of choice (although it could be attempted, I have shown it would break down within one or two terms into revolt and ousting from power).

The fact remains, as quite a few on various posts on chesstalk have indicated just over the last couple of days, that you are a nasty troll!

[Pargat Perrer]

Types of Governing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 154 - 23/8/27

What makes you [Bob A] think that imposing the will (with a myriad of controversial laws) of the 51% upon the 49% that disagrees, is the right thing to do? Why are you against a system in which the government has mainly judicial responsibilities and cannot impose the desires of the majority to cause disadvantages to the minority?

Response

One type of Democracy (Most) operate by majority vote in the Parliament (Generally "Government by Representation"). The concept is that in this way, the Will of the People (The Majority) rules.

But the "tyranny of the majority" in most democracies is completely countered by Constitutions. In this law, human rights are enshrined as sacred, as well as setting out any national Constitutional Rights. The attempts by the majority to do harm to any minority are answered by a minority lawsuit alleging a breach of their rights by government. The Judiciary, whom we trust to a very high degree, as a main player in our overall systems of government, will decide if the minority is being harmed in some way. If they are, the court has the power to nullify the obnoxious law, and cause the harm being done to the minority to cease.

So, as in Libertarianism, the Judiciary is the bulwark of proper government.

I do have concerns that Libertarian purists believe that the government need only pass one law: The Natural Law. If someone is aggrieved by the actions of another, they simply launch a court action against the offender. As has been stated here before, my concern is with everyone having a private interpretation of how their self-interest actions are exempted by the Natural Law. Disagreements on this will be myriad. A Constitution is much clearer and more concrete, and so is less ambiguous. And yet even then we have a plethora of court cases alleging that someone claiming to be innocent is in fact guilty of breach of someone's Constitutional Right. I fear Pargat Perrer's belief that Libertarianism will have more lawsuits than non-Libertarian governments, with lots of laws, is true.

So we have both democracy plus minority protection. The Libertarian government, however chosen to wield power, will have some "majority" on it. If you believe the government in operating will not interpret the Natural Law in their favour, and have to be brought to court regularly to reign them in, you are not seeing the world as it really is, and the immoral self-interest people are sometimes capable of.

Should our dear Donald become # 47 in the USA, there will be a lot of lawsuits against the government for breaching the Constitution (The citizens will thank God, or someone, that they have it as the basic law!).......they'll make the number of indictments and law suits against Donald look like chump change.

Bob A (Believer in Democracy, though "Direct" rather than "Representative".

Bob, I am very impressed by your response above. Very eloquently expressed, especially the statement:

"If you (Dilip) believe the government in operating will not interpret the Natural Law in their favour, and have to be brought to court regularly to reign them in, you are not seeing the world as it really is, and the immoral self-interest people are sometimes capable of."

To date, Dilip has not responded at all to the constant reminders that human nature is in control and always has been and always will be. Well, that is to say, he has not responded except to claim "You Nasty Troll!" to me.

To you, he has been more polite, while even less informative (if that is possible).

Bob, i wonder what you think about my claim that Dilip is really presenting Libertarianism as fascism in sheep's clothing. Specifically, that no, lawsuits will not IN FACT be more prevalent as they should be absent our current set of laws and precedents, because Libertarianism will IN FACT be a police state.

[Bob Armstrong]

Types of Governing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 154 - 23/8/27

...a government need not even have to be 'elected'; it could just be appointed by some sort of rotation in a system of 'circles within circles...'

Response

The people are free to determine how to govern themselves. So if they prefer to jettison the "Elected Government", they are certainly free to come up with some other way of setting up the rule over them.

But good luck getting a majority vote on some other type of never-before-tried system, such as rotation among some specific and different "Committees" (perhaps using the method of circles within circles you propose.......many do not know what this means.....and I am unclear now on the details. It would be helpful if you would describe how government might simple rotate between some generally accepted groups of citizens.)

In the USA, I fear that a majority that would elect Donald, would come up with a pretty horrible alternate system of who will be the government.......just sayin'!

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

Types of Governing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 154 - 23/8/27

What makes you [Bob A] think that imposing the will (with a myriad of controversial laws) of the 51% upon the 49% that disagrees, is the right thing to do? Why are you against a system in which the government has mainly judicial responsibilities and cannot impose the desires of the majority to cause disadvantages to the minority?

Response

One type of Democracy (Most) operate by majority vote in the Parliament (Generally "Government by Representation"). The concept is that in this way, the Will of the People (The Majority) rules.

But the "tyranny of the majority" in most democracies is completely countered by Constitutions. In this law, human rights are enshrined as sacred, as well as setting out any national Constitutional Rights. The attempts by the majority to do harm to any minority are answered by a minority lawsuit alleging a breach of their rights by government. The Judiciary, whom we trust to a very high degree, as a main player in our overall systems of government, will decide if the minority is being harmed in some way. If they are, the court has the power to nullify the obnoxious law, and cause the harm being done to the minority to cease.

So, as in Libertarianism, the Judiciary is the bulwark of proper government.

I do have concerns that Libertarian purists believe that the government need only pass one law: The Natural Law. If someone is aggrieved by the actions of another, they simply launch a court action against the offender. As has been stated here before, my concern is with everyone having a private interpretation of how their self-interest actions are exempted by the Natural Law. Disagreements on this will be myriad. A Constitution is much clearer and more concrete, and so is less ambiguous. And yet even then we have a plethora of court cases alleging that someone claiming to be innocent is in fact guilty of breach of someone's Constitutional Right. I fear Pargat Perrer's belief that Libertarianism will have more lawsuits than non-Libertarian governments, with lots of laws, is true.

So we have both democracy plus minority protection. The Libertarian government, however chosen to wield power, will have some "majority" on it. If you believe the government in operating will not interpret the Natural Law in their favour, and have to be brought to court regularly to reign them in, you are not seeing the world as it really is, and the immoral self-interest people are sometimes capable of.

Should our dear Donald become # 47 in the USA, there will be a lot of lawsuits against the government for breaching the Constitution (The citizens will thank God, or someone, that they have it as the basic law!).......they'll make the number of indictments and law suits against Donald look like chump change.

Bob A (Believer in Democracy, though "Direct" rather than "Representative").

[Pargat Perrer]

I think Sid was just making fun of you, and in simple words, indicating that you are a nasty troll!

Labelling someone a troll when that someone has exposed your own position as illogical is a favorite tactic on CT. It doesn't bother me in the least, because it is a sign of pure weakness.

"Ohhh... I've been proven wrong...." (typing furiously) .... "You Nasty Troll!"

None of it matters, because Libertarianism is never going to become the political system of choice (although it could be attempted, I have shown it would break down within one or two terms into revolt and ousting from power).

[Dilip Panjwani]

He refused to make payments to his building contractors, and when accused of that in the 2016 primaries, he responded "That makes me smart". Most of the contractors ended up bankrupt. Their lemonade stands had been effectively steamrolled.

That is what I earlier called 'a sad commentary on our current legal system', wherein Trump's liars (lawyers) could use the myriad stupid, often controversial laws to 'prove' that white is black and black is white... And being a psychopath, Trump thought it was 'smart' to amass wealth by doing the wrong stuff 'legally' in a corrupt legal system...

[Dilip Panjwani]

Are Some Political Systems Better than Others?

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 146 - 23/8/27 - "It seems you [Bob A] agree that making Marxism democratic does not make it any better than that in Russia, as the majority opinion does not mean the right opinion.

Response

NO - I don't agree with your comment at all! I am somewhat surprised that you hold such a position.

The Majority Opinion rules in ANY democracy. So we must look at other factors to discriminate between political philosophies.

Russia - Russia is a dictatorship dressed up in democratic sheep's clothing.

So it is definitely worse than Democratic Marxism (A democratic system). I believe I will have no trouble getting this Statement generally accepted when I bring it to the ChessTalk Human Self-Government thread.

USA - USA is a Regulated Capitalist State (With the Oligarch's determining the minimum extent of regulation the public will tolerate/accept).

The majority opinion there is definitely worse than in Canada on many issues: Abortion; Medical care of the public; partisanship on Judicial Appointments; accepting politicians with very poor moral correctness (Libertarianism is much better on this as well......it is why I am shocked that sometimes you support the re-election of Donald Trump as President); gun control; etc.

Sweden - Sweden is a Social Democratic Government (Popularly called "Capitalism with a human face"). The only difference from the Capitalist government in Canada is that the majority have been able to cow their government into a better quality of life than in Canada. The majority opinion is better at this quality of life test than the Canadian majority - teacher's working conditions and pensions; daycare; public education; etc.

I could go on with some past examples - Democratic Socialism - France under Mitterrand - longest lasting consecutive years government in France ever - worker's rights given high priority. Yup, the majority opinion there was much better than today's in Russia or USA.

China - China is an old-style USSR Communist State - a dictatorship dressed up in democratic sheep's clothing as well.

Here the dictator is the main power within the Chinese Communist Party......and at the moment, this seems not to be the often powerful "Central Committee".....Xi Jinping has managed to create a cult of leadership unseen since Mao Zedong. So China is on a par with Russia, IMHO, re human rights. But it is better than Russia on material benefits to the majority of its citizens (Especially when you consider its population is second only to India now (In the past it had the highest population since forever on this planet).
Human rights are trampled by the majority; workers' rights are trampled by majority opinion.

MY Statement:


Democratic Marxism will allow the majority in any country, in future as it is slowly adopted across the globe, to implement its will, by vote and by law, better than any existing government today.



The issue between competing political philosophies of which is better is measured by the extent to which the majority opinion, which does rule in democracies, gets it CORRECT!

By the majority adopting Democratic Marxism in a country, this country will definitely be better than that in Russia - the majority will be allowed to think for itself, and rule, and will sort it out better than the other systems where the will of the people is suppressed (More or less, depending on the system) and other negative factors will come into play and there will be laws imposed on them which they know to be wrong, but cannot legally change. This will not happen under Democratic Marxism - it trusts its majority to get it CORRECT when left alone to decide. Humanity as a whole is altruistic......systems which give minority interests (E.g. Oligarchs) the right to integrate into the system, self-interested benefits, are the real problem for the working class/all citizens.

Relationship of the Above to this thread on Donald Trump

Should Donald Trump become # 47, as well as # 45 in the USA, the chance of the majority asserting itself at all will become very dubious. The Republican Party/Donald are heading into authoritarian waters, and that can, and likely might, lead to Dictatorship.

Yes, Dilip, the USA government system will be WORSE than that of many countries, and many countries of the past. It may even be a disaster for the world.

Question to Dilip: Will Russia's influence on the globe increase with his puppet, Donald, at the helm?

Bob A

Hi Bob,
In USA and many other democracies, when we talk of majority vs. minority, we are talking of 51% vs 49%. What makes you think that imposing the will (with a myriad of controversial laws) of the 51% upon the 49% that disagrees, is the right thing to do? Why are you against a system in which the government has mainly judicial responsibilities and cannot impose the desires of the majority to cause disadvantages to the minority? Such a government need not even have to be 'elected'; it could just be appointed by some sort of rotation in a system of 'circles within circles' which we discussed in the past, and which you were also in favor of...

[Dilip Panjwani]

I do not recognize this writing as Sid Belzberg. Someone has hacked his CT account?

Two lemonade stands on the same street corner is an "Eden" of lemonade stands? Puh-lease!

It IS creative intelligence to deploy a steamroller against a lemonade stand .... IF IT WORKS. Under Dilip's Natural Law, under "fair competition", it would work.

If you disagree, please explain in layman's terms how the use of a steamroller against an opponent's lemonade stand is NOT fair competition. And believe me, once you go down that path, I can take it to where we will end up with lawyers involved to the Nth degree. Which will exactly prove my point: Libertarianism is really Lawyertarianism.

And if you say lawyers cannot be involved ... you invoke a police state, i.e. fascism. In that case, Libertarianism is really fascism.

The overriding conclusion is that LIbertarianism is some logical ideal that cannot be realized in the real world. It is a logical fallacy. The real world, to use your own terms Sid (if this post I am responding to is really Sid) ....

The real world is, and has been for millennia, full of fragile vases regularly and consistently shattered by the brute force of mercenary tactics!

And the beat goes on......

I think Sid was just making fun of you, and in simple words, indicating that you are a nasty troll!

[Bob Armstrong]

Are Some Political Systems Better than Others?

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 146 - 23/8/27 - "It seems you [Bob A] agree that making Marxism democratic does not make it any better than that in Russia, as the majority opinion does not mean the right opinion.

Response

NO - I don't agree with your comment at all! I am somewhat surprised that you hold such a position.

The Majority Opinion rules in ANY democracy. So we must look at other factors to discriminate between political philosophies.

Russia - Russia is a dictatorship dressed up in democratic sheep's clothing.

So it is definitely worse than Democratic Marxism (A democratic system). I believe I will have no trouble getting this Statement generally accepted when I bring it to the ChessTalk Human Self-Government thread.

USA - USA is a Regulated Capitalist State (With the Oligarch's determining the minimum extent of regulation the public will tolerate/accept).

The majority opinion there is definitely worse than in Canada on many issues: Abortion; Medical care of the public; partisanship on Judicial Appointments; accepting politicians with very poor moral correctness (Libertarianism is much better on this as well......it is why I am shocked that sometimes you support the re-election of Donald Trump as President); gun control; etc.

Sweden - Sweden is a Social Democratic Government (Popularly called "Capitalism with a human face"). The only difference from the Capitalist government in Canada is that the majority have been able to cow their government into a better quality of life than in Canada. The majority opinion is better at this quality of life test than the Canadian majority - teacher's working conditions and pensions; daycare; public education; etc.

I could go on with some past examples - Democratic Socialism - France under Mitterrand - longest lasting consecutive years government in France ever - worker's rights given high priority. Yup, the majority opinion there was much better than today's in Russia or USA.

China - China is an old-style USSR Communist State - a dictatorship dressed up in democratic sheep's clothing as well.

Here the dictator is the main power within the Chinese Communist Party......and at the moment, this seems not to be the often powerful "Central Committee".....Xi Jinping has managed to create a cult of leadership unseen since Mao Zedong. So China is on a par with Russia, IMHO, re human rights. But it is better than Russia on material benefits to the majority of its citizens (Especially when you consider its population is second only to India now (In the past it had the highest population since forever on this planet).
Human rights are trampled by the majority; workers' rights are trampled by majority opinion.

MY Statement:


Democratic Marxism will allow the majority in any country, in future as it is slowly adopted across the globe, to implement its will, by vote and by law, better than any existing government today.



The issue between competing political philosophies of which is better is measured by the extent to which the majority opinion, which does rule in democracies, gets it CORRECT!

By the majority adopting Democratic Marxism in a country, this country will definitely be better than that in Russia - the majority will be allowed to think for itself, and rule, and will sort it out better than the other systems where the will of the people is suppressed (More or less, depending on the system) and other negative factors will come into play and there will be laws imposed on them which they know to be wrong, but cannot legally change. This will not happen under Democratic Marxism - it trusts its majority to get it CORRECT when left alone to decide. Humanity as a whole is altruistic......systems which give minority interests (E.g. Oligarchs) the right to integrate into the system, self-interested benefits, are the real problem for the working class/all citizens.

Relationship of the Above to this thread on Donald Trump

Should Donald Trump become # 47, as well as # 45 in the USA, the chance of the majority asserting itself at all will become very dubious. The Republican Party/Donald are heading into authoritarian waters, and that can, and likely might, lead to Dictatorship.

Yes, Dilip, the USA government system will be WORSE than that of many countries, and many countries of the past. It may even be a disaster for the world.

Question to Dilip: Will Russia's influence on the globe increase with his puppet, Donald, at the helm?

Bob A

[Pargat Perrer]

Paragat, allow me to lay bare this grotesque caricature of a counter-argument. The pitiful thrust of its point, a disheveled hedgehog of thought rolled up in what it imagines invincibility, is as unconvincing as a stewed prune served as a delicacy.

"Fair competition," it claims, the term sullied and marred by its application. How can one term, so nobly conceived, be dragged through the mud of illogicality and emerge, in this sorry instance, disrobed of its original sinlessness? You know, fair competition: the ballet of free markets, a waltz in equilibrium, not an artillery blast at close quarters.

To bring a steamroller into this Eden of lemonade stands is not unlike introducing a wolf into a creche of innocent lambs. One can almost hear the clattering machinery of this flawed philosophy, grinding gears drowning out the sweet symphony of genuine competition. No it is not "creative intelligence" to deploy a steamroller, any more than it is artistry to slash a canvas with a knife and declare it improved.

And what of this hypothetical lemonade entrepreneur, Dillip? Must he stand accused of self-inflicted wounds, merely for daring to exist within the trajectory of his rival's rampaging vehicle? That is victim-blaming rendered as farce, a dark comedy where the punchline is a bruise.

No, if we allow this garish interpretation to stand, we hollow out the golden core of Libertarian ideals, leaving a gilded shell. Natural law, perverted thus, becomes unnatural farce. The cherished principle, "Thou shalt not harm others," is not a fragile vase to be shattered by the brute force of mercenary tactics; it is, rather, the firmament above us, unyielding and unchangeable, under which the intricate ballet of human interaction occurs.

So, let us not tarnish these lofty ideals with the soot of faulty reasoning. For, to do so would be to dance willingly into the gaping jaw of absurdity, and, my dear Paragat, that is a dance in which I refuse to partake.

I do not recognize this writing as Sid Belzberg. Someone has hacked his CT account?

Two lemonade stands on the same street corner is an "Eden" of lemonade stands? Puh-lease!

It IS creative intelligence to deploy a steamroller against a lemonade stand .... IF IT WORKS. Under Dilip's Natural Law, under "fair competition", it would work.

If you disagree, please explain in layman's terms how the use of a steamroller against an opponent's lemonade stand is NOT fair competition. And believe me, once you go down that path, I can take it to where we will end up with lawyers involved to the Nth degree. Which will exactly prove my point: Libertarianism is really Lawyertarianism.

And if you say lawyers cannot be involved ... you invoke a police state, i.e. fascism. In that case, Libertarianism is really fascism.

The overriding conclusion is that LIbertarianism is some logical ideal that cannot be realized in the real world. It is a logical fallacy. The real world, to use your own terms Sid (if this post I am responding to is really Sid) ....

The real world is, and has been for millennia, full of fragile vases regularly and consistently shattered by the brute force of mercenary tactics!

And the beat goes on......

[Pargat Perrer]

Shut up, you nasty troll. There is nothing fair about steam-rolling your competition, you nasty troll.

Pay attention, everyone, this is how Dilip will apply "consensus" on Natural Law. It won't be "consensus", it will be decree.

Meanwhile....

Do you think, Dilip, that I chose this Trump scenario by pure accident?

Trump ascended to prominence in NY City real estate by effectively "steamrolling" his competition.

He refused to make payments to his building contractors, and when accused of that in the 2016 primaries, he responded "That makes me smart". Most of the contractors ended up bankrupt. Their lemonade stands had been effectively steamrolled.

[Sid Belzberg]

So if Dilip and Donald Trump both have lemonade stands on the same street corner, Trump is ok to flatten Dilip's lemonade stand with a steamroller.

Fair competition. Trump had the resources and the creative intelligence to rent the steamroller and hire someone to drive it to flatten Dilip's stand. And if Dilip got in the way of the steamroller and was injured, he did the harm to himself.

I am eager to hear your objections, Dilip.

Paragat, allow me to lay bare this grotesque caricature of a counter-argument. The pitiful thrust of its point, a disheveled hedgehog of thought rolled up in what it imagines invincibility, is as unconvincing as a stewed prune served as a delicacy.

"Fair competition," it claims, the term sullied and marred by its application. How can one term, so nobly conceived, be dragged through the mud of illogicality and emerge, in this sorry instance, disrobed of its original sinlessness? You know, fair competition: the ballet of free markets, a waltz in equilibrium, not an artillery blast at close quarters.

To bring a steamroller into this Eden of lemonade stands is not unlike introducing a wolf into a creche of innocent lambs. One can almost hear the clattering machinery of this flawed philosophy, grinding gears drowning out the sweet symphony of genuine competition. No it is not "creative intelligence" to deploy a steamroller, any more than it is artistry to slash a canvas with a knife and declare it improved.

And what of this hypothetical lemonade entrepreneur, Dillip? Must he stand accused of self-inflicted wounds, merely for daring to exist within the trajectory of his rival's rampaging vehicle? That is victim-blaming rendered as farce, a dark comedy where the punchline is a bruise.

No, if we allow this garish interpretation to stand, we hollow out the golden core of Libertarian ideals, leaving a gilded shell. Natural law, perverted thus, becomes unnatural farce. The cherished principle, "Thou shalt not harm others," is not a fragile vase to be shattered by the brute force of mercenary tactics; it is, rather, the firmament above us, unyielding and unchangeable, under which the intricate ballet of human interaction occurs.

So, let us not tarnish these lofty ideals with the soot of faulty reasoning. For, to do so would be to dance willingly into the gaping jaw of absurdity, and, my dear Paragat, that is a dance in which I refuse to partake.

[Dilip Panjwani]

So if Dilip and Donald Trump both have lemonade stands on the same street corner, Trump is ok to flatten Dilip's lemonade stand with a steamroller.

Fair competition. Trump had the resources and the creative intelligence to rent the steamroller and hire someone to drive it to flatten Dilip's stand. And if Dilip got in the way of the steamroller and was injured, he did the harm to himself.

I am eager to hear your objections, Dilip.

Shut up, you nasty troll. There is nothing fair about steam-rolling your competition, you nasty troll.

[Pargat Perrer]

Well said.
It seems you agree that making Marxism democratic does not make it any better than that in Russia, as the majority opinion does not mean the right opinion. The only thing that ALL (not only a majority) can agree upon is: THOU SHALT NOT HARM OTHERS, EXCEPT IN FAIR COMPETITION !

So if Dilip and Donald Trump both have lemonade stands on the same street corner, Trump is ok to flatten Dilip's lemonade stand with a steamroller.

Fair competition. Trump had the resources and the creative intelligence to rent the steamroller and hire someone to drive it to flatten Dilip's stand. And if Dilip got in the way of the steamroller and was injured, he did the harm to himself.

I am eager to hear your objections, Dilip.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Unfortunately, the majority does not acknowledge holding a wrong position very easily.

Thus those trying to change the law to a correct rendition often face stonewalling and downright attack.

It is sometimes justified to engage in non-violent civil disobedience of a minor nature, to move the "reform the law" position forward, and to have people, slowly, realize the error of their ways. Eventually truth wins out, the majority opinion becomes that espoused for years by the minority, and the Parliament revises the obnoxious law.

Well said.
It seems you agree that making Marxism democratic does not make it any better than that in Russia, as the majority opinion does not mean the right opinion. The only thing that ALL (not only a majority) can agree upon is: THOU SHALT NOT HARM OTHERS, EXCEPT IN FAIR COMPETITION !