New World Order (NWO), sometimes called the Great Reset

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip Panjwani Post # 173 - 23/8/13

"[With current non-Libertarian governments ] If court cases arise out of breaking laws or interpreting them to one's own advantage, as you [Bob A] say, then the more the number of laws, the more the court cases."

Response by Bob A - Post # 175 - 23/8/13

This is not true.

What "minimizes" interpretation of law court cases is the fact of both the law, and the precedent interpretation decisions, being written and publicly accessible. So everyone knows both what the law is (And they are very practical in content, not theoretical like a philosophical or theological statement), and how it has been court interpreted. So a complainant can see if his/her favourable to him/her interpretation has already been thrown out by the court. So it is no use going to court when one knows one is going to lose, and pay court costs (Unless, as you say, some sleazy lawyer has lied about the law, and lied about the prior court decision precedents, to his client, in order to have them authorize a case, and for the lawyer to take the client to the cleaners).

What "maximizes" court cases is a general theoretical law (In a philosophical or theological form). The Libertarian Natural Law is such a law.

No one, but no one, knows what it means on the ground, at ground zero. Good people can disagree on how it applies in any particular situation. Evil people will always argue the Natural Law is "ambiguous", and open to THEIR interpretation (Which just happens to be favourable to them!).[credit to Pargat Perrer on this one].

Bob A (Inactive Lawyer with the Ontario Bar - hopefully not sleazy when in practice!)

[Bob Armstrong]

Libertarianism

Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians

Statement # 3 (Proposed; in processing)

The Natural Law is: All is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Proposed Revision to Statement # 3 (By Bob Armstrong, with Dilip Panjwani as source - His Post # 173 - 23/8/13)

The Natural Law is: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition. So, all is permissible to the individual that is not harmful to others/society, except in fair competition. If one wants to harm oneself, though illogical, one is free to do so.

Processing

If the proposed revision is not "Challenged" as not accurately representing the Libertarian view, within one week, then it will be inserted in the list of Statements generally acceptable to the Libertarians in the CT'er group.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip Panjwani Post # 165 - 23/8/12


Re what inhibits rooting out corruption - The Natural Law theory/Libertarianism will do nothing to root out corruption better because of less laws. Rather than having a myriad of laws, there will be in Libertarian society a plethora of court cases. The reason - the Natural Law is not codified, and so everyone is free to "interpret" it to their own advantage.

Corruption will hide behind the terrible cost of litigation........"prove in Court that I'm breaking the simple gold-standard Natural Law by corruption! And I'll bring a defamation lawsuit if you assert such before a court judgment!"

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

Bob, let me give you, once again, a simple codification of the Natural Law: Thou shalt not harm others, except in fair competition.
If court cases arise out of breaking laws or interpreting them to one's own advantage, as you say, then the more the number of laws, the more the court cases. Get it?
And as for the cost of litigation, it is the liars (lawyers) who are responsible, and Libertarianism will ensure that if these liars (lawyers) try to lie in court, they would have to appropriately compensate for wasting everyone's time, energy and money.
Please do not make statements without any basis, as you have done in your post; when you do that, people realize that you are just feeling threatened that Democratic Marxism is being proven to be just a little less obnoxious than what you call 'old-styled communism'.

[Bob Armstrong]

Our Wonderful Canadian Capitalism



Capitalism is a "tyrannical economic/political theory" that necessarily creates, and continuously widens, the wealth/income gap among Canadians. The wealthy elite rule.

Over 50% of ordinary Canadians (One of the richest countries in the world; always in the top 10 of most livable countries on the globe) currently have less than $ 200 savings in the bank (Most recent survey I've seen). They basically live from paycheque to paycheque. Should a large unexpected cost appear, they are forced to borrow and go into debt, which they can virtually never pay off. Numbers of Canadian families now have two adults working 2 part-time jobs (2 children) to barely meet monthly expenses.

The most recent trend is that new immigrants, and even refugees, are leaving Canada for other countries because it is not what they were promised. Life in Canada is getting a lot harder economically.

Accommodation rents are sky-rocketing - people are moving out of Toronto because they cannot afford to live there any longer.

Good job, Canadian Capitalism.

Bob Armstrong (Democratic Marxist; Coordinator of the Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario - to be registered in future)

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism

There seems to be some public confusion between modern Democratic Marxism (DM), and Old-style USSR Communism (As currently practised in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.).

It may be worthwhile to make a list of Statements generally accepted by Democratic Marxists.

We did this for Libertarianism (Still in process) to clarify the posts of Libertarians who are part of our group. They will often refer, or confusingly refer, to the principles of Libertarianism in posting, and the list of Statements generally accepted by Libertarians has helped immensely to more clearly understand them (Dilip Panjwani is the main Libertarian poster; Sid Belzberg appears not to be a Libertarian, but seems comfortable with some Libertarian positions, and will post in support).

But before this, it may be important to draw to CT'ers attention the seminal work on DM called "The New Democratic Theory" - Kenneth A. Megill - 70/1/1 - Paperback on Amazon (Hardcover almost impossible to find). I will give a week to try to locate it and read it.

In one week I will put forward a Statement # 1 generally accepted by the Democratic Marxists in this CT'er group. Then we will open Statement # 1 to "Disagreement" (The Statement thought by others to counter the statement and which is actually the truth).

Is this thought to be helpful in our ongoing discussion of Human Self-Governance here?

Bob A (Democratic Marxist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Response to Sid Belzberg Post # 167 - 23/8/12

1. Sid: "who decides who gets what and how much [in a Democratic Marxist State]?"

DM Response: The Government will pass laws, available to all to read, and challenge, as happens under Capitalism. So the elected majority will pass the laws, and material distribution to individuals will follow these laws."

2. Sid: "You [Bob A] appear to be describing "tyranny of the majority". The tyranny of the majority is normally offset by that pesky thing called a constitution.....Your proposal appears to be a 'democracy" without a constitution."

Response: Democratic Marxism will, like Capitalism, have a "Constitution". And its purpose will be to reign in the majority so that they do not breach the human and other rights of minorities. It will be enforced in the courts, as under Capitalism.

3. Sid: "Your proposal of seizing assets without due process appears to also violate the Canadian Charter of Rights......Your favorite example of Allende [Chile & the Canadian copper mines]"

Response: Nowhere in my Democratic Marxist posts have I asserted that there will be blatant non-due-process seizing of assets held by private individuals and/or corporations. There will be a "transition phase" - moving from Capitalism through a mixed Capitalism/DM phase to full DM. There will be reasonable compensation paid where private assets are necessary to the society at large.

Of course, you have heard of Capitalist "expropriation". It will be similar to this in Capitalism - the State does grab now private property; and individual citizens/corporate citizens go to Court to argue that the expropriation is unnecessary or that the compensation is inadequate. DM State citizens will have the very same right as now.

4.Sid: "Economic Debate: There's also an economic argument. Nationalization in the great majority of cases, leads to inefficiencies due to lack of competition or mismanagement."

Response: This is sometimes the fact......but this is moreso the case in the old-style USSR Communism model countries today, that still adhere to "centralized planning" (China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc).

DM operates on decentralization - small is beautiful (Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered is a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher - Wikipedia). It seeks small, local political units (Make the globe one of "villages") with "direct democracy". In such an environment, the workers who manage and profit from worker-owned companies will not want them to be inefficient and mismanaged.

5. Sid: "In Chile's case, the nationalization of copper was a deeply polarizing move that had significant economic, political, and diplomatic repercussions."

Response: Salvadore Allende's Government (The Unity Government, with the Communist Party of Chile; Allende's party was the "Socialist" party) was fairly elected......this was internationally confirmed.

Yes Chile became polarized; it had been polarized for years. The capitalist business community refused to work with the government and tried to undermine all efforts at reform benefiting the ordinary Chilean. The business community never thought they would ever lose power in Chile.....Allende had been beaten in this three prior tries for the Presidency.

The United States was apoplectic about Chile going some kind of socialist/communist. It covertly worked with the business community to block Allende. When that didn't work, the Chilean business community, and the USA, brought in the Chilean military (Allende did not replace the top echelons of the Chilean military (Augusto Pinoche) when he won the election; he is forever criticized for this by the left, who felt he was being naive in his belief that the Chilean military were not politically aligned). The three factions together brought about a military coup by Augusto. During it, Salvador was holed up in the presidential building, surrounded by coup soldiers. He knew he would be tortured when caught. So he committed suicide before the soldiers could reach him.

All of this is well documented in many official investigations.

Under Pinochet, eventually civilly elected President, the ordinary Chilean worker has lost out.

6. Question to Bob A: "By the way, have you watched the videos I have posted yet?"

I have reviewed the one video you wanted me to watch, The Great Reset lecture: Post # 157 - 23/8/12.

Is this the second one you are referring to?

The Great Reset From the Religious Point of View

A. Full Movie – The Great Awakening (From Sid Belzberg – dubbed Plandemic 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbUWqOotw0


B. 8 key moments in another version:

a. Introduction 0:00

b. Spiritual Decline 0:54

c. The Awakening 05:24

d. Jonathan Edwards 11:05

e. Reverend John Whitfield 15:49

f. Controversy 19:28

g. The Dissenters 25:39

h The Sandy Creek Awakening 29:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELS8e8hATk (Full Movie)

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

There will be a "transition phase" --Transitional to tyranny.

[Bob Armstrong]

Response to Sid Belzberg Post # 167 - 23/8/12

1. Sid: "who decides who gets what and how much [in a Democratic Marxist State]?"

DM Response: The Government will pass laws, available to all to read, and challenge, as happens under Capitalism. So the elected majority will pass the laws, and material distribution to individuals will follow these laws."

2. Sid: "You [Bob A] appear to be describing "tyranny of the majority". The tyranny of the majority is normally offset by that pesky thing called a constitution.....Your proposal appears to be a 'democracy" without a constitution."

Response: Democratic Marxism will, like Capitalism, have a "Constitution". And its purpose will be to reign in the majority so that they do not breach the human and other rights of minorities. It will be enforced in the courts, as under Capitalism.

3. Sid: "Your proposal of seizing assets without due process appears to also violate the Canadian Charter of Rights......Your favorite example of Allende [Chile & the Canadian copper mines]"

Response: Nowhere in my Democratic Marxist posts have I asserted that there will be blatant non-due-process seizing of assets held by private individuals and/or corporations. There will be a "transition phase" - moving from Capitalism through a mixed Capitalism/DM phase to full DM. There will be reasonable compensation paid where private assets are necessary to the society at large.

Of course, you have heard of Capitalist "expropriation". It will be similar to this in Capitalism - the State does grab now private property; and individual citizens/corporate citizens go to Court to argue that the expropriation is unnecessary or that the compensation is inadequate. DM State citizens will have the very same right as now.

4.Sid: "Economic Debate: There's also an economic argument. Nationalization in the great majority of cases, leads to inefficiencies due to lack of competition or mismanagement."

Response: This is sometimes the fact......but this is moreso the case in the old-style USSR Communism model countries today, that still adhere to "centralized planning" (China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc).

DM operates on decentralization - small is beautiful (Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered is a collection of essays published in 1973 by German-born British economist E. F. Schumacher - Wikipedia). It seeks small, local political units (Make the globe one of "villages") with "direct democracy". In such an environment, the workers who manage and profit from worker-owned companies will not want them to be inefficient and mismanaged.

5. Sid: "In Chile's case, the nationalization of copper was a deeply polarizing move that had significant economic, political, and diplomatic repercussions."

Response: Salvadore Allende's Government (The Unity Government, with the Communist Party of Chile; Allende's party was the "Socialist" party) was fairly elected......this was internationally confirmed.

Yes Chile became polarized; it had been polarized for years. The capitalist business community refused to work with the government and tried to undermine all efforts at reform benefiting the ordinary Chilean. The business community never thought they would ever lose power in Chile.....Allende had been beaten in this three prior tries for the Presidency.

The United States was apoplectic about Chile going some kind of socialist/communist. It covertly worked with the business community to block Allende. When that didn't work, the Chilean business community, and the USA, brought in the Chilean military (Allende did not replace the top echelons of the Chilean military (Augusto Pinoche) when he won the election; he is forever criticized for this by the left, who felt he was being naive in his belief that the Chilean military were not politically aligned). The three factions together brought about a military coup by Augusto. During it, Salvador was holed up in the presidential building, surrounded by coup soldiers. He knew he would be tortured when caught. So he committed suicide before the soldiers could reach him.

All of this is well documented in many official investigations.

Under Pinochet, eventually civilly elected President, the ordinary Chilean worker has lost out.

6. Question to Bob A: "By the way, have you watched the videos I have posted yet?"

I have reviewed the one video you wanted me to watch, The Great Reset lecture: Post # 157 - 23/8/12.

Is this the second one you are referring to?

The Great Reset From the Religious Point of View

A. Full Movie – The Great Awakening (From Sid Belzberg – dubbed Plandemic 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbUWqOotw0


B. 8 key moments in another version:

a. Introduction 0:00

b. Spiritual Decline 0:54

c. The Awakening 05:24

d. Jonathan Edwards 11:05

e. Reverend John Whitfield 15:49

f. Controversy 19:28

g. The Dissenters 25:39

h The Sandy Creek Awakening 29:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vELS8e8hATk (Full Movie)

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip Panjwani Post # 165 - 23/8/12

Your are right - I've added Democratic Marxism to the list of political philosophies that cannot root out corruption totally. I'll go out on a limb and say a workers' society will do better than a capitalists' society.

Re what inhibits rooting out corruption - The Natural Law theory/Libertarianism will do nothing to root out corruption better because of less laws. Pargat Perrer is correct in that rather than having a myriad of laws, there will be in Libertarian society a plethora of court cases. The reason - the Natural Law is not codified, and so everyone is free to "interpret" it to their own advantage.

Corruption will hide behind the terrible cost of litigation........"prove in Court that I'm breaking the simple gold-standard Natural Law by corruption! And I'll bring a defamation lawsuit if you assert such before a court judgment!"

Bob A (Anti-NWO)

[Sid Belzberg]

Democratic Marxism & Private Property

Response to Sid Belzberg - Posts # 159 & 162 - 23/8/12

Sid: "Karl Marx himself said that communism can be summed up in the following phrase "abolition of Private property.' So if you [Democratic Marxism] find this to be a repugnant idea why are you calling yourself a "democratic MARXIST"?"

Bob A: My Post # 161 gives a full answer to this question if one takes the time to properly read it.

Democratic Marxism [And I] does not find the "abolition of Private Property" repugnant. In fact it embraces it. But there is an exception.

What is repugnant is the agenda of the NWO/GR: "ALL will be owned by the State".

This is not on for Democratic Marxism.....the NWO foresees the abolition of both "small personal worker private ownership", AND, the abolition of "Bourgeois Property". DM, on the other hand, sees worker rights as necessarily allowing for "small personal worker private ownership"!

This is a further elaboration of the explanation of DM & Private Property in my Post # 161.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

Great, Bob, and who decides who gets what and how much? You appear to be describing "tyranny of the majority". The tyranny of the majority is normally offset by that pesky thing called a constitution. Something that our WEF client states have completely ignored since 2020. Your proposal of seizing assets without due process appears to also violate the Canadian Charter of Rights,

Section 7 of the Charter guarantees everyone "the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Its guarantee of "security of the person" and the right not to be deprived of it "except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" means that any law or government action that deprives someone of their property must adhere to basic principles of justice. This could include notions of fairness, due process, and the right to be heard.


Furthermore, while the Charter offers these protections, Canadian provinces also have legislation and constitutional provisions that can offer protection to property rights. For example, the province of Alberta has the Alberta Bill of Rights, which explicitly recognizes the right not to be deprived of property without due process.

Your proposal appears to be a 'democracy" without a constitution.

Your favorite example of Allende included his first priority was seizing copper mines with no regard to constitutional rights

1. Historical Context: The copper industry was vital to the Chilean economy, and for decades, there were debates about how profits from copper extraction should be used. Before Allende, there were already pressures to increase Chile's share of these profits.
2. US Corporations: The major mines were owned by two US corporations, Anaconda Copper and Kennecott Copper. These companies had controlled these assets for decades, and they had made significant investments in them,
3. Compensation: While the Allende government did declare its intent to compensate companies for the nationalized assets, there was a disagreement over valuation. Due process and adherence to a constitution were abandoned.
4. Economic Impacts: In the short term, the nationalization brought additional revenues into the state coffers. However, managing these large industries proved disastrous, and efficiency and productivity were nonexistent.

Broader Considerations:

1. Moral and Ethical Debate: The question of whether it's ethical to nationalize an industry, especially one built by private entities, Allende flagrantly infringed on property rights and stifled needed future private investment.
2. Economic Debate: There's also an economic argument. Nationalization in the great majority of cases, leads to inefficiencies due to lack of competition or mismanagement.

In any case, nationalization, most of the time has terrible consequences. In Chile's case, the nationalization of copper was a deeply polarizing move that had significant economic, political, and diplomatic repercussions.


In short so-called democracies that abandon constitutional rights go against the principles of Western civilization and frankly have never worked.

By the way, have you watched the videos I have posted yet?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Should a worker quit because of low wages, someone from the "Replacement Pool" will come forward to take the job, because they are desperate.


Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

You have pin-pointed the real problem, Bob, congratulations! Too many of us choose to be laborers/clerical workers, and not enough of us choose to be entrepreneurs/professionals. Libertarianism removes the stupid laws (made by the unholy alliance of politicians with corrupt capitalists) which dissuade people from becoming entrepreneurs, and Libertarianism also removes the false promise of Marxism that the State will look after your children even if they spend their childhood and youth doing stuff other than self-development to become professionals...

[Dilip Panjwani]

[B]

Corruption will not be eliminated by Social Democracy, Socialism, Old-style USSR Communism, Modern day Chinese Communism, nor Fascism

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

You forgot to add your Democratic Marxism in that list, Bob!
And all these systems, as well as Capitalism, actually facilitate corruption because corruption thrives when one can hide behind unnecessary complexities within the system. Only the simplicity of one Natural Law, and as you rightly point out, a fair and strong court system where even lawyers who tell lies, wasting everyone's time, are punished, can deal with corrupt mindedness...

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism & Private Property

Response to Sid Belzberg - Posts # 159 & 162 - 23/8/12

Sid: "Karl Marx himself said that communism can be summed up in the following phrase "abolition of Private property.' So if you [Democratic Marxism] find this to be a repugnant idea why are you calling yourself a "democratic MARXIST"?"

Bob A: My Post # 161 gives a full answer to this question if one takes the time to properly read it.

Democratic Marxism [And I] does not find the "abolition of Private Property" repugnant. In fact it embraces it. But there is an exception.

What is repugnant is the agenda of the NWO/GR: "ALL will be owned by the State".

This is not on for Democratic Marxism.....the NWO foresees the abolition of both "small personal worker private ownership", AND, the abolition of "Bourgeois Property". DM, on the other hand, sees worker rights as necessarily allowing for "small personal worker private ownership"!

This is a further elaboration of the explanation of DM & Private Property in my Post # 161.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

[Bob Armstrong]

The Problem with Capitalism

Response to Dilip Panjwani - Post # 159 - 23/8/12

Dilip: "Why not just get rid of corrupt capitalism which enables exploitation, instead of adopting Marxism...."

Bob A: Without "labour", capital can only gain interest. Without "capital", workers are idle. Thus production requires both as a necessity. Democratic Marxism sees this as an equal partnership; thus in Capitalism, the "profit" generated should be equally divided.

Capitalists want nothing to do with this idea.

The problem of Capitalism is that it is skewed so that Capital is predominant over Labour. Thus Capitalism deliberately maintains a pool of non-earners/low earners. This allows Capitalism to undervalue Labour, and to keep wages down. Should a worker quit because of low wages, someone from the "Replacement Pool" will come forward to take the job, because they are desperate.

So when a widget is produced, its cost of production includes a devalued wage expense. And the profit is then grabbed by Capital in its entirety.

On the other side, Capitalism keeps consumer prices high! For Capitalism, the legal mandate is to maximize profit (Court cases have upheld this mandate). So the cost of things is way beyond the cost of production. Thus the worker is both underpaid, and then overcharged. S/he struggles to pay the family monthly bills.

Democratic Marxism says there is something wrong with this picture.

Corruption, Dilip, is endemic to human nature. Human nature has both a "light" side, and a "dark side". At various times, the human being embraces one or the other (And many go back and forth). So eliminating "corruption" from human society is a Libertarian pipe dream. Corruption will not be eliminated by Democratic Marxism, Social Democracy, Socialism, Old-style USSR Communism, Modern day Chinese Communism, nor Fascism - any promising to do so are lying, as does Libertarianism. This is why humans require a fair court system.

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti-NWO)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism (DM) Policies

Property Ownership (Private Property)

The New World Order (NWO) Agenda

All will be owned by the State, and it will guarantee continuous accessibility to what is needed materially.

DM Response: This projection is often designated as an extension of Marxism. It may be an extension of old-style “USSR Communism”. It is directly opposed to Democratic Marxism (Which is quite different than old-style USSR Communism). In DM there is room for worker personal private ownership, without excess. What there is not room for is “bourgeois property”:

“The distinguishing feature of “Communism” [Marxian use, not old-style USSR Communism use] is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of “bourgeois property”. Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: [Communism can be summed up as the] abolition of private property.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti NWO)

You forgot to answer post #159 in relation to this post, Bob.

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism (DM) Policies

Property Ownership (Private Property)

The New World Order (NWO) Agenda

All will be owned by the State, and it will guarantee continuous accessibility to what is needed materially.

DM Response: This projection is often designated as an extension of Marxism. It may be an extension of old-style “USSR Communism”. It is directly opposed to Democratic Marxism (Which is quite different than old-style USSR Communism). In DM there is room for worker personal private ownership, without excess. What there is not room for is “bourgeois property”:

“The distinguishing feature of “Communism” [Marxian use, not old-style USSR Communism use] is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of “bourgeois property”. Modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: [Communism can be summed up as the] abolition of private property.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...festo/ch02.htm

Bob A (Democratic Marxist/Anti NWO)