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

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)
(Started: 22/12/5)

Update

Libertarianism



Statements Generally Accepted by Libertarians in a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board (Non-Chess Forum), ChessTalk. The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem.They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.

A. . Statements on Libertarianism

Statement # 1

Governments at all levels pass too many laws. Many are more restrictive than necessary, and some are just unnecessary. This unduly restrains the freedom of the individual, which is the paramount concern of society.

Statement in Opposition to Libertarian positions in Statements # 1 - # 6

Part 1:
There is no such thing as universal common-sense. Since a common-sense interpretation of the Natural Law ("do no harm to others, except in fair competition") is always subject to personal bias as to what exactly common-sense IS, there can be no consistent and irrefutable, indisputable interpretation of the Natural Law. Consequently, any attempt at one-size-fits-all Libertarianism will lead to alienation / protests / violence / overthrow of the system. Even the vaunted Judges and Police will be at each other's throats, because they have differing views of common-sense. This is the nature of humanity as evidenced throughout human history."

Part 2:
"There is no such thing as a universal definition of "fair competition". Therefore even where common-sense is not in dispute (if that could ever be the case, which Part 1 disputes), still disputes will inevitably arise over what constitutes exceptions under the Fair Competition clause. Lawyers will endlessly argue about possible exceptions, which current legal systems try to encapsulate under the living, evolving system of laws and sub-laws, which Natural Law counter-intuitively sets out to abolish.

Summary Statement:
Therefore, the very idea of a single one-size-fits-all Natural Law is illogical and is doomed to failure.

Statement # 2

The main problem in current society is the "absolute enforcement" of law (Zero tolerance), even when such enforcement is illogical. An example might be giving a citizen a traffic ticket for going through a Stop Sign at midnight when no other pedestrian or vehicle is in sight. The laws are to be honoured in "spirit", though not always in the "letter".

Statement # 3

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.

Statement # 4

The Natural Law operates to bring common sense to law enforcement and to maximize the Freedom of the Individual. Thus, in certain circumstances (As in the traffic example above), the Natural Law overrides the actual relevant law, to provide an exception to the following of the law.

Statement # 5

Those in society charged with enforcement of law (Such as the police), have discretion to recognize the operation of the Natural Law in certain circumstances, and treat the conduct of the individual as not illegal. Thus they will not lay any charge against the individual.

Statement # 6

Where, by the conduct of the individual, someone breaks a law, and the Natural Law does not apply (There has been harm to another/society), the police/government can lay a charge and bring the individual before the court.

Statement # 7

The court shall verify the breaking of the law, and impose a penalty. Penalties should usually involve a "Compensation Payment" of some kind to the harmed individual/society at large. This will assist in deterring actions in society that are harmful to others/society.

Statement # 8

Libertarianism will employ 24/7 digital surveillance of every citizen in public spaces, including not just video but audio as well. This will help Natural Law enforcement to have the facts necessary to make discretionary decisions on whether to lay charges for breach of the Natural Law or other laws. It will also provide needed evidence for court hearings, where the issue is whether the Natural Law provided an exemption for non-compliance. This is seen as a necessary over-ride of the citizen's right of privacy and freedom from surveillance for the purpose of justice and order .

B. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.

C. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.


3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time; However, A Revision Challenge does pause the processing of an opposition Challenge....the Opposition must know the wording of the Statement being opposed; if there is a Revision, then the Challenger has the opportunity to revise the out-of-date Challenge; the one week period will then start again).


4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

Note:

Phase I - Interpretation Challenge (That this is an inaccurate Statement, as seen by the other group itself) : If there is no "Challenge" within one week , then the Statement is generally accepted, and joins the list of generally accepted DM Statements.

Phase II - Opposition Challenge (That this is an unworkable position or false statement): Cannot be processed until the Statement itself becomes generally accepted by the Partisan Members in this group.]

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk

Human Self-Government

(Problem: NWO [New World Order] – Label of the Left; GR [The Great Reset] - Label of the Right)
(Started: 22/12/5)

Update




A. Statements On Human Self-Government Generally

(Generally accepted by a tournament chess players group on the Canadian national chess discussion board, ChessTalk (Non-Chess Forum). The CT'ers are discussing Human Self-Government and the New World Order/Great Reset problem. They represent the partisan political spectrum and the issue spectrum.)

Statement # 1.

World-wide, in the past, people have had a structure of government imposed on them by a minority.

Support – Bob Armstrong - Post # 117 – 23/7/21:

“The Statement does not refer to a societal minority imposing its government on a societal majority. This statement refers to the fact that in the family of earliest man, the male set the rules for his female partner(s) and children - a minority of one. Later in groups, it was a "chief", or a "king"......it is individuals determining a government structure for all. Then, for example in the United Kingdom, the wealthy nobles, barons, dukes, etc. force the King to share power with them, a minority (The Elite), and then laws got promulgated satisfactory to them (Not much consideration of the welfare of the majority). The first Statement refers to pre-democracy times.”

Statement # 2.

Over time, electors have democratically accepted the government structure proposed at the time, usually some variant of earlier forms of government (Who are "electors" has evolved over time).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # 122 – 23/7/24:

“The statement does not say that the people democratically accepted the government structure "imposed"! It says the government structure "proposed".

The general sentiment that people, in a democracy, "vote for the party of their choice" is true. The elector has become, now, in a democracy, responsible for the society from then on (Assuming it remains a democracy). In a democracy, everything is subject to the will of the majority. Electors around the world have voted to adopt capitalism, social democracy, socialism, Democratic Marxism, Communism and Fascism.....by electing parties with these various policies, the people are voting for the structuring of their government.

There is also, almost world-wide, the acceptance of "representative" government - this is being democratically adopted.”

Statement # 3.

Some societies have had imposed on them, or chosen by election, a dictatorship (Rule by the One). However, some societies have chosen by election, a democracy (Rule by the Majority).

Support – Bob Armstrong – Post # Post # 129 - 23/7/31

Democracy means Rule by the Majority. But the point of the post is that that some societies are not democratic. They have not adopted "rule by the majority". They have adopted by election, or had imposed on them, dictatorships (Rule of the One).

Statement # 4.

People have passed "Constitutions" and developed Courts in order to have human rights respected and to prohibit the tyranny of the majority.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15)

“... even a cursory peek at histories of nations will reveal multiple examples of 'tyranny of the majority'; it exists even today...”

Statement # 5.

People (A majority of the local government, at least) have the right to agree with each other on a government structure for themselves and can join hands to act jointly to govern themselves, and act in a way they feel "benefits themselves and humanity", so long as there is a respect for basic human rights.

Support - Dilip Panjwani (Post # 111 - 23/7/15):

“...the sad part about representative democracies is that the politicians who get elected do not serve the majority...they make fools of the majority (and minority), and sometimes it takes more than one term for the electors to realize that they are being hoodwinked, and then they elect a different party which hoodwinks them in a different way. The so-called majority does not rule, but decides which of the political parties they are less mad at. If only people could govern themselves, ........, where they may join hands with like-minded co-citizens in certain ways, that would be as close to Utopia as one can get...”

Statement # 6

“Direct” democracy is preferable to “Representative” Democracy, if implementable. Usually, direct democracy has been practiced in small, local political units. But with today's technology, direct democracy voting can be used within larger political units.

Statement # 7

Since people should be able to focus on higher activities of life (Philosophy, the Arts, Politics, etc.), automation will be a key factor in making this happen. It can free people from lower, less rewarding, work and life tasks. So some citizens will be able to dedicate more time to public life and government, and how to improve it.

Statement # 8

Good education enlightens the mind. Today's rote data learning only challenges the memory. Without the former, society will have neither a wise electorate, nor a wise government.

Statement # 9

When we add "human nature" to "power" in governing, corruption and abuse of power result. This is the reason all political human self-governance structures have resulted in:

I) the creation of an elite group who wield the power, and
II) the exploitation, by the elite group, of the powerless and marginalized segments of society.

Statement # 10

Statement # 10 (Proposed - Dilip Panjwani - Post # 319 - 23/9/7)

If a hard and smart-working, disciplined family is unable to live comfortably, then something is wrong with their government system being followed.

[Secretarial Note: I have put this Statement forward as Dilip's because it is almost a verbatim quote of him, with some editorial amending to make it a more general statement about government anywhere of any kind. If Dilip disapproves of this, please advise me and I will put it forward under my own name, with some credit to Dilip.]

Supporting Reasons

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 319 - 23/9/7

People will be always struggling to get a decent portion of an ever-shrinking common pie; and the common pie shrinks rapidly despite the running of anything efficiently will become the government's business. But for the bunch of government appointed administrators who do not have their own skin at stake if the system is a mess, the only task will be to convince everyone that the system is very very expensive to run. In this situation it becomes hard for many citizens to live "comfortably".

[Secretarial Note: I have used a quote from Dilip, and edited it to fit as a "Supporting Reason". Dilip is free to give me a substitute or to make whatever revisions he desires, and I will do the editing.]

Supplementary Support 1 - Bob Armstrong - This Post - 23/9/8

Fact

As an example, 50% of Canadians work hard, and save next to nothing.......living paycheck to paycheck. And this in one of the wealthiest countries on the planet. The situation is even much worse in many developing nations.

I fear that the issue causing poverty in the world is not efficiency and excess spending of governments of all types (An example often given is re Canadian socialized medicine. Even if this is so, no Canadian is willing to opt instead for the USA Health Care model, except some extreme, wealthy Canadian Oligarchs). It is the very type of system, not how it is operated (All systems are subject to some inefficiency and luxurious & corrupt spending.

In Capitalism, it is the very dynamic of Capitalism which MUST keep some pool of poor, for there to be a much smaller pool of rich.......this drives ever wider, by necessity, the wage gap. This is why Capitalist Social Democracy arose ........ to try to find ways within Capitalism to moderate the rate of divergence between the haves and the have-nots.

Replacing Capitalism with some type of Democratic Socialism seems at least a first step to citizens living "comfortably".

Processing

There is one week for a "Revision" and/or an "Opposition" Challenge; deadline: Friday, Sept. 15 @ 11:59 PM EDT. Of course, CT'ers can also post "Supplementary Support Reasons".
If there is no Challenge, then the Statement # 10 is generally accepted and joins the list of generally accepted HS-G Statements. To date, there have been no Challenges.

B. Group Secretary Rulings

Ruling # P1 (Procedural)

When a new Statement is proposed, it must be put forward with some supportive reasons. These reasons are preferred to be in Executive Summary form. Where the Support Reasons are extensive, they will not be carried forward, but the Post # and date will be. The proposer is free to submit a replacement executive summary Statement, and it will then be used.

C. Processing

1. Statement can be proposed, with Supporting Reasons.

2. There is one week for someone to launch a Revision Challenge, or an Opposition Challenge, with Supporting Reasons. If there is no challenge, then the Statement is “generally accepted” and joins the list of Statements.


3. If a Challenge is launched, then the onus is on the Challenge Proposer to muster support for the Challenge (To establish that they are not the lone Challenger in the Group). The fact that some time may have passed before the launch of the Challenge does not affect the one week processing time).


4. Silent members of the group are “assumed” to be willing to go with the plurality after voting (Regardless of their opinion, they will be subject to the plurality/majority decision.............by not making a choice, they do in fact make one in our electoral system).

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Fred Harvey]

It would behoove you much better if you could answer questions, like the one about that "other" PP who is not a LIbertarian party member but is a Conservative party member. Why won't you try and answer why he isn't in the Libertarian party?

You got your answer from Bob Armstrong! Slight reading problem, or a "mental health" issue?

[Fred Harvey]

Fred Harvey???? LOL that guy is a born sh*t disturber. He only shows up here and posts when he can add fuel to a fire, then he sits back and chuckles as he admitted.

Guilty as charged! Now what?

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Pargat:

I think the answer re Poilievre being a "Conservative" has to do with "electability"......I would have preferred that he start a "Libertarian Party of Canada and run as the new leader. He would then have been buried so deep we'd never hear from him again.

Bob A (As Participant)

Bob, just a small point, there already is a Libertarian Party in Canada, PP doesn't have to start one. But I get your point about electability. Which only goes to show how shallow politicians of all stripes really are. They like all humans act in their own self-interests. But I feel that you, with your Democratic Marxism efforts, don't have self-interest at heart and so I respect what you are doing. If I had to choose between Libertarianism ("Lawyertarianism") and DM, I'd go DM all the way. I wish we could have tried Bernie Sanders as U.S. President for one term instead of the total wasted years of Trump, if that tells you anything.

[Pargat Perrer]

Did you not read Fred Harvey's post just above, and Sid's post before that, and a few of Bob himself's posts on this matter, in a couple of which he honestly admits that your statements he included in his list should not be attributed to him as they would make him sound idiotic, and another in which he unfortunately has to defend the hypothetical car-stealing analogue of his 'policy' of persisting with your idiotic statements?
Why do you persist in being a nasty troll even when several posters have told you that your posts are such?
This particular post of yours is the most non-sensical you have so far posted.

You are really going off the rails.

At this point, I am concerned about your mental health.

Fred Harvey???? LOL that guy is a born sh*t disturber. He only shows up here and posts when he can add fuel to a fire, then he sits back and chuckles as he admitted.

Bob's comment about looking like an idiot was based on YOUR INTERPRETATION that I was saying "common sense doesn't work". I never said ANY SUCH THING.

You can try and try and try, and you can repeat "nasty troll" infinite times, none of it matters. What matters is that your points have been defeated, logically and easily, and you respond with invectives. That is the mark of a loser -- a very sore loser.

It would behoove you much better if you could answer questions, like the one about that "other" PP who is not a LIbertarian party member but is a Conservative party member. Why won't you try and answer why he isn't in the Libertarian party?

Maybe it's because Libertarianism isn't right for him, so you should try and explain why.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip makes up a story about 2 people wanting to steal a car, and now he has turned this entire effort of Bob A.'s into the moral equivalent of stealing a car -- all without any input from anyone else! In other words, this moral equivalent of stealing a car is ENTIRELY A FABRICATION IN THE MIND OF DILIP.

So I have to ask, who is the one that is acting in a dictatorial manner here? Is it Bob A. who is tendering for initial statements (some of which he provides himself) and also tendering for opposition statements, or is it Dilip who is simply making up a fabricated moral equivalency and unilaterally declaring this equivalency as fact?

In a court of Canadian law, Dilip would be thrown out on his ass.

We can turn Dilip's ridiculous notion on its head and simultaneously destroy his Libertarian ideology.

Instead of saying 2 people want to steal a car, let's say the 2 people want to build the world's least-polluting car. The victim becomes the CEO of the company building the world's worst-polluting car, which happens to be popular because it goes really fast.

Dilip would now be defending the guy making the worst-polluting car, and he would be doing it in the name of Libertarianism. Meanwhile, he says LIbertarianism is about entrepeneurs going out and making things better.

ROFLMAO

Did you not read Fred Harvey's post just above, and Sid's post before that, and a few of Bob himself's posts on this matter, in a couple of which he honestly admits that your statements he included in his list should not be attributed to him as they would make him sound idiotic, and another in which he unfortunately has to defend the hypothetical car-stealing analogue of his 'policy' of persisting with your idiotic statements?
Why do you persist in being a nasty troll even when several posters have told you that your posts are such?
This particular post of yours is the most non-sensical you have so far posted.

[Pargat Perrer]

Bob's 'logic':

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

Bob really wants the car to be stolen, by hook or by crook, doesn't he?

Dilip makes up a story about 2 people wanting to steal a car, and now he has turned this entire effort of Bob A.'s into the moral equivalent of stealing a car -- all without any input from anyone else! In other words, this moral equivalent of stealing a car is ENTIRELY A FABRICATION IN THE MIND OF DILIP.

So I have to ask, who is the one that is acting in a dictatorial manner here? Is it Bob A. who is tendering for initial statements (some of which he provides himself) and also tendering for opposition statements, or is it Dilip who is simply making up a fabricated moral equivalency and unilaterally declaring this equivalency as fact?

In a court of Canadian law, Dilip would be thrown out on his ass.

We can turn Dilip's ridiculous notion on its head and simultaneously destroy his Libertarian ideology.

Instead of saying 2 people want to steal a car, let's say the 2 people want to build the world's least-polluting car. The victim becomes the CEO of the company building the world's worst-polluting car, which happens to be popular because it goes really fast.

Dilip would now be defending the guy making the worst-polluting car, and he would be doing it in the name of Libertarianism. Meanwhile, he says LIbertarianism is about entrepeneurs going out and making things better.

ROFLMAO

[Fred Harvey]

There once was an internet poll
With four active guys on a roll
An idiot with too many years
A conspiracy theorist with fears
A Libertarian fan....and a troll

Well this "silent member" in no way supports the "majority vote"! And I suspect that most of the other silent members only tune in here for a chuckle from time to time. Really guys, step back and take a look at some of your posts....

[Dilip Panjwani]

Bob's 'logic':

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

Bob really wants the car to be stolen, by hook or by crook, doesn't he?

[Sid Belzberg]

This CT'er Group's Democratic Process

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 342 - 23/9/10

"Bob's democracy exemplified:

A gang of two decides to steal a car, and they approach the car-owner and hold a vote, giving the victim a vote too, and decree that if no one from elsewhere opposes the vote in the next 5 minutes, it will be considered an established 'law'... and they steal the car..."

Response

Dilip is failing to grasp the reality that this "Group" has adopted a democratic, majority vote process.

My Post # 296 - 23/9/4 (As Participant) - There is an average of 30 CT'ers per day who make extra clicks to get from chess to non-chess, and our Human Self-Government thread (Latest Stat - Average daily views for 2023 to date).

So Dilip's "Car Theft" analogy is totally FALSE. There are not only 3 actors; there are 30!

The Majority Dynamic

We do not in "The Conversation Format Protocol" count only the votes from those coming forward to post. Where there are two Challenges to a Statement, and the only one supporting the Statement is the proposer, the result is NOT two vs one gives the majority, and the two win.

The issue is the position of the "MAJORITY OF THE GROUP"!! And how is this determined if only 3 members of the group have spoken up? Good question........

ANSWER: The protocol we have adopted puts the onus on someone objecting to speak up and post. We assume people are complying with the convention and that if they remain silent, they can be assumed toll side with the majority of those who have spoken up.

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

This is the "democracy by majority vote" that this CT'er group has adopted.......absolutely nothing wrong with it.......complies with all democratic systems.

In national voting, it is assumed that the non-voters go with the majority party elected. Whomever gets the plurality, gets the silent votes, since they agree by not speaking up, that they will abide by the majority of those speaking up! They, of course, do not get these silent votes in their tallied vote count. But even if they are protesting by not voting, the system assumes that they are willing to go with the majority of those voting since they will be under that Party's government, and have not spoken up by voting for some other party. The silent voter is not allowed to suck and whistle.........their complaints after the election about the government are met with........"Your problem; you could have voted for another Party!"

Finally, this group does NOT give only 5 minutes for decisions to be made. The protocol of this group is that there is a full one week of processing decisions. And even each Group Secretary Ruling is given one week to be challenged before being adopted by the majority, or rejected. And the Secretary Ruling does not come into effect or become permanent until the one week Challenge Period has expired.

All extremely democratic, and followed assiduously by this CT'er Group.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

This is the "democracy by majority vote" that this CT'er group has adopted

Really? Where are the votes of thirty Cters to adopt this? I assumed that since you started the thread you were looking for a way to informally come up with statements we all agree with.. Then you perverted it into this pseudo deomcracy.. Everything is wrong with it starting with the fact that rarely do more than three or four CTers participate. You abuse your own rules as exemplified by the fact that you omitted two proposed statements statement 9. and created a new ruler on wildfires that they are too controversial for your taste.
No surprise that you rarely read or listen to what I post. You don't want to learn anything. You just want to tout your DM. Sorry Bob the jig is up, you fooled no one.

[Bob Armstrong]

This CT'er Group's Democratic Process

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 342 - 23/9/10

"Bob's democracy exemplified:

A gang of two decides to steal a car, and they approach the car-owner and hold a vote, giving the victim a vote too, and decree that if no one from elsewhere opposes the vote in the next 5 minutes, it will be considered an established 'law'... and they steal the car..."

Response

Dilip is failing to grasp the reality that this "Group" has adopted a democratic, majority vote process.

My Post # 296 - 23/9/4 (As Participant) - There is an average of 30 CT'ers per day who make extra clicks to get from chess to non-chess, and our Human Self-Government thread (Latest Stat - Average daily views for 2023 to date).

So Dilip's "Car Theft" analogy is totally FALSE. There are not only 3 actors; there are 30!

The Majority Dynamic

We do not in "The Conversation Format Protocol" count only the votes from those coming forward to post. Where there are two Challenges to a Statement, and the only one supporting the Statement is the proposer, the result is NOT two vs one gives the majority, and the two win.

The issue is the position of the "MAJORITY OF THE GROUP"!! And how is this determined if only 3 members of the group have spoken up? Good question........

ANSWER: The protocol we have adopted puts the onus on someone objecting to speak up and post. We assume people are complying with the convention and that if they remain silent, they can be assumed toll side with the majority of those who have spoken up.

So no one else posts for either side of going ahead and stealing the car. The position of the majority posting (2) is to steal the car; only 1 CT'er doesn't want the car stolen. There are 27 who have not spoken. Under the protocol that the "silent members" agree to join with the posting majority, 27 votes go to stealing the car. So what is the vote:

Don't Steal the Car - 1 CT'er (Proposer)
Steal the Car - 29 (2 Challengers + 27 silent CT votes)

This is the "democracy by majority vote" that this CT'er group has adopted.......absolutely nothing wrong with it.......complies with all democratic systems.

In national voting, it is assumed that the non-voters go with the majority party elected. Whomever gets the plurality, gets the silent votes, since they agree by not speaking up, that they will abide by the majority of those speaking up! They, of course, do not get these silent votes in their tallied vote count. But even if they are protesting by not voting, the system assumes that they are willing to go with the majority of those voting, since they will be under that Party's government, and have not spoken up by voting for some other party. The silent voter is not allowed to suck and whistle.........their complaints after the election about the government are met with........"Your problem; you could have voted for another Party!"

Finally, this group does NOT give only 5 minutes for decisions to be made. The protocol of this group is that there is a full one week of processing decisions. And even each Group Secretary Ruling is given one week to be challenged before being adopted by the majority, or rejected. And the Secretary Ruling does not come into effect or become permanent until the one week Challenge Period has expired.

All extremely democratic, and followed assiduously by this CT'er Group.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Pargat:

I think the answer re Poilievre being a "Conservative" has to do with "electability"......I would have preferred that he start a "Libertarian Party of Canada and run as the new leader. He would then have been buried so deep we'd never hear from him again.

Bob A (As Participant)

Do you know that a vast number of Canadians have more brains than you, Bob, and therefore realize that a self-proclaimed Libertarian like Pierre is what the country needs...?

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

1. Dilip's Post # 334 - 23/9/9 - That in my Post # 333 - 23/9/9 I omitted reference to your Post # 302:

Post # 334 - "By not including post#302 in your statements, you are beginning to sound insincere, I am sorry to say..."

Response

You are very quick off the mark with character assassination when someone just makes a mistake or makes a deliberate decision with which you happen to disagree.

Here is your Post # 302:

Dilip quotes my Secretarial Update of Statements passed by this group, Part II of 3 parts (Post # 295), which includes the Libertarian ones and the Democratic Marxist ones.

"Bob, if the straight-forward concepts of common-sense and fair competition sound complicated & unworkable to you and to PP, please accept my sympathies. You are headed for the misery of Democratic Marxism, where you get drowned in a myriad nonsensical 'laws' devoid of all common-sense, and fair competition is replaced with 'unfair grabbing' from a very limited common-pie all are forced to share... Are you forgetting the dark side of human beings (which you repeatedly mention), when it comes to forceful sharing with strangers (outside of the their family which they have created, and hence feel responsible for)?"

Irrelevancy of Dilip's Post # 302 to my Secretarial Post # 333

This post is totally irrelevant to my Post # 333.

Dilip's Post # 302 deals the issue of "common sense" and its role in government.

My Post # 333 states (Again a Group Secretary Post):

"Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)"


My Post # 333 deals ONLY with Group Secretarial Power and the democratic style of this CT'er group.

Can you see the difference Dilip?

There is absolutely no reason for me to refer to your Post # 302 in my Post # 333.........it is on a totally different topic.

So, no I did not make a mistake. Yes I deliberately saw that your Post # 302 was not relevant, as was almost every other post in this thread, except the one where I had previously dealt with the power of the Group Secretary.

2. Dilip's View of the Role of the Group Secretary

Dilip's Post # 337 - 23/9/9 responding to a Post of Pargat Perrer is also relevant:

"There would be no protocol violation for Bob to include #302 in the statements;..."

Response

I had already given Dilip a full explanation of the "Role of the Group Secretary" in my Post 333 as Group Secretary (above). But I'll repeat the post again since now we are dealing with a different issue:

"Democratic CT'er Group Processing

Dilip Panjwani - Post # 332 - 23/9/9

"Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that Statement [#1 Opposition] by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it..."

Secretarial Response

As a Group Secretary, I have deliberately taken the position that I am almost powerless. I merely try to carry out the wishes of the group and keep things in order and up-to-date. Decisions are group decisions. Statements are group Statements.

In this case of Libertarian Statement # 1, a Statement in Opposition was put forward as a note to be inserted into the list of Libertarian Statements. It was generally accepted as a valid Statement in opposition.

I am not free as Secretary to just delete it because some people consider it wrong, foolish, whatever.........I have no such power.

In this situation, the protocol is not to have a discussion take place between Libertarians and opponents as to who is right......that can be dealt with elsewhere........we simply want whatever Statements are generally accepted to be listed for the benefit of others, as educational material. It was up to the group to determine if it was a Statement they accepted, or not. They accepted it.......no one challenged it as untrue within the one week Challenge Period. But there is an issue of whether the Libertarians in the group should be able to Challenge it.......obviously they claim it is wrong. This would be the case in our calling for any Opposition Statements re a Partisan List of Statements. So I think it is up to those not of the partisan group to challenge it if it is false.

Any comments on this discussion?

Bob A (As Group Secretary)"


Issue: Dilip wants the Group Secretary to have MORE power?? This from a Libertarian who hates bureaucrats and says they have too much power and also abuse it?

Dilip wants me to over-ride our whole "The Conversation Format Protocol", which we as a CT'er group just adopted by formal vote. He wants me to insert, as a formal statement, into the list of Libertarian Statements, his comment in Post # 302 (I'll set it out again to show what he wants me to do:

"Bob, if the straight-forward concepts of common-sense and fair competition sound complicated & unworkable to you and to PP, please accept my sympathies. You are headed for the misery of Democratic Marxism, where you get drowned in a myriad nonsensical 'laws' devoid of all common-sense, and fair competition is replaced with 'unfair grabbing' from a very limited common-pie all are forced to share... Are you forgetting the dark side of human beings (which you repeatedly mention), when it comes to forceful sharing with strangers (outside of the their family which they have created, and hence feel responsible for)?"

Response

1. This is a "comment", not a formal Statement is the Executive Summary format.

2. As I have tried to explain democracy here to you, I have no power to just insert some Statement on a frolic of my own. Statements are proposed by Participants and must be generally accepted after going through due process.

3. Dilip is very free to propose a Libertarian Statement to include in the list, which must be succinct, and not a personal attack. Then it will be processed in the normal way.

Bob A (As Group Secretary)

Bob's democracy exemplified:

A gang of two decides to steal a car, and they approach the car-owner and hold a vote on it, giving the victim a vote too, and decree that if no one from elsewhere opposes the vote in the next 5 minutes, it will be considered an established 'law'... and they steal the car...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Pargat:

I think the answer re Poilievre being a "Conservative" has to do with "electability"......I would have preferred that he start a "Libertarian Party of Canada and run as the new leader. He would then have been buried so deep we'd never hear from him again.

Bob A (As Participant)