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

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

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.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

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.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

Well, now you also have PP (Pierre P) oppose that statement by PP (Pargat P). So feel free to delete it, especially as you thought (in your previous post #329) it made you sound idiotic. So you (post #329), me (in post #302, which was just a few days after the proposed statement) and Pierre (in his address to all Canadians), all seem to oppose it…

[Bob Armstrong]

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)

[Dilip Panjwani]

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)

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

[Pargat Perrer]

Maybe this Libertarian guy can instill some wisdom into stubborn Bob's stubborn endeavor...
Pierre Poilievre's Common Sense Convention Keynote Speech:

.....

If this other PP is Libertarian, why isn't he a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

What part(s) of Libertarianism does he disagree with?

And / or, what does he think Libertarianism leaves out that is present in the Conservative party?

[Pargat Perrer]

Dilip:

I did NOT make that Opposition Statement in Post # 295 - 23/9/4!

Libertarian Statements of our Group

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.

Pargat Perrer proposed this Statement. Not only did he propose it, it was not challenged by any CT'er within one week. So it is a "generally accepted" Statement in opposition to the Libertarian position.........no Statement, however, is any longer an "Individual's" Statement, once accepted by this CT'er group. All our Statements are Statements of this CT'er group.

I can understand how you got confused now..........

Poilievre's government, and it looks like he may win, will still be a disaster in my opinion (Post # 329 - 23/9/8)

Bob A (As Participant)

Dilip's summary of my Statement In Opposition as "Common sense does not work" is pure fiction. That is NOT what the statement says. Anyone with rudimentary English skills can deduce that. Therefore, I consider Dilip to be resorting to underhanded tactics and re-interpreting statements to suit his destructive agenda with respect to what you are trying to do here, Bob. I think maybe you need to "put the hammer down" on this behavior from Dilip.

And now I see Dilip says if you don't include his post #302 in the general statements, he will consider you (Bob A.) "insincere". This comes after you explained the protocol to him, and he wants you to violate the protocol.

His post #302 just seems to extend sympathies to you because you don't see the world the way he does. I really think at this point Dilip just wants to torpedo this whole effort of yours.

Him calling me a troll in this thread is SO pot-calling-the-kettle-black.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip's summary of my Statement In Opposition as "Common sense does not work" is pure fiction. That is NOT what the statement says. Anyone with rudimentary English skills can deduce that. Therefore, I consider Dilip to be resorting to underhanded tactics and re-interpreting statements to suit his destructive agenda with respect to what you are trying to do here, Bob. I think maybe you need to "put the hammer down" on this behavior from Dilip.

And now I see Dilip says if you don't include his post #302 in the general statements, he will consider you (Bob A.) "insincere". This comes after you explained the protocol to him, and he wants you to violate the protocol.

His post #302 just seems to extend sympathies to you because you don't see the world the way he does. I really think at this point Dilip just wants to torpedo this whole effort of yours.

Him calling me a troll in this thread is SO pot-calling-the-kettle-black.

The fact remains, and is exemplified by the above, that you are a nasty troll!
There would be no protocol violation for Bob to include #302 in the statements; I wonder if he is just a fascist cloaked as a democratic secretary, and only wants to tout DM and bring down all other systems, in which case I would agree with Sid's conclusions on his climate-change statements (#1749 there), with similar conclusions being applicable in this thread too...

[Dilip Panjwani]

If this other PP is Libertarian, why isn't he a member of the Libertarian Party of Canada?

What part(s) of Libertarianism does he disagree with?

And / or, what does he think Libertarianism leaves out that is present in the Conservative party?

And if he is new and democratic, why does he not join NDP, eh, troll??

Wikipedia says: Poilievre entered the 38th Canadian Parliament at the age of 25 along with Andrew Scheer as the youngest members of the Conservative caucus.^[33] Poilievre introduced himself and his young colleagues to media outlets as "libertarian-minded" members of the party.^[34][35]

[Pargat Perrer]

And if he is new and democratic, why does he not join NDP, eh, troll??

Wikipedia says: Poilievre entered the 38th Canadian Parliament at the age of 25 along with Andrew Scheer as the youngest members of the Conservative caucus.^[33] Poilievre introduced himself and his young colleagues to media outlets as "libertarian-minded" members of the party.^[34][35]

Once again, as so many times before, you simple will not or cannot answer the questions put to you.

If he's a member of the Conservative party, and not the Libertarian party, then obviously he must have differences with Libertarianism. You tout him as Libertarian, but you can't answer why is not a member of the Libertarian party.

Keep digging that hole, Dilip.

[Bob Armstrong]

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 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)

[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...

[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...?

[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)

[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.