Debate Now Directions to Utopia

[$ecular#eckler]

For a long while, I allowed myself to believe that this was all simply due to idealistic naiveite on your part. However, as we go along, I can not help be to conclude that there is something sinister and nefarious about your politics and philosophy.

Political dogma is a very tough cookie to chew if you are not the leader of the peaceful and orderly revolution.

Your insistence on presenting all ideologies as equally deserving of consideration- where the oppressor is given a seat at the table alongside of the oppressed while government stays out of the way is a form of social Darwinism, and it is dangerous.

Nonsense. It is a modern sophisticated constitutional convention series - the national discussion. The United States Fourth Continental Congress.

Equality, which you claim to seek will never be achieved by subjecting one group to the capricious and arbitrary whims of the other when the balance of power is inherently unequal, and I think that you know it.

Ideological segregation is inevitable; and ideological demarcation is all-encompassing; and very little, if anything, is immune from political considerations, regulations, and boycotts.

The imbalance of power in the American governing system is because of the inadequacies of the Three-part Separation Theory. A better government separation model will inspire the people who are inclined to participate in a modern sophisticated constitutional convention series.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Six-Part Government Separation Model​

 

[luiza]

"Ideological segregation is inevitable; and ideological demarcation is all-encompassing; and very little, if anything, is immune from political considerations, regulations, and boycotts."

Sounds intriguing .
What will it look like in English?

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I have (slightly) more respect for those who are upfront with their intentions to discriminate against and marginalize others, than I do for people who claim that they want freedom for all and push these Constitutionalist or Libertarian arguments as a means towards that end.

Exactly. The descriptions, and controls of rights versus security, need to be better understood. Ideological segregation is inevitable in the search for global peace.

The founders were very limited in their abilities to provide representation for the diversity that the American Society has evolved to; much less, compose the directive systems for a corruption-proof governing system.

Libertarians especially are fond of bleating about “freedom” and a limited government that does not intrude of people's lives. They shy away from promoting laws that they perceive as oppressive. They are also quick to shun measures like hate crime and anti discrimination laws. As such, they give a green light to those outside of government to do the dirty work for them. The result is that some are more free than others, but in reality no one is free until we are all free.

Free to agree to abide by the laws of the society in which you choose to participate.

In any case, the outcome can only be socially regressive, which is why I found it especially laughable that you, at one point suggested that you are progressive. Progressives believe in progress. I am for moving forward. Your policies and philosophy would clearly take us backward. Game over. You fool me no more

Constitutional dogma is what is socially regressive. A new and better government charter system is the inevitable progression toward Justice, Truth, and Peace.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

"Ideological segregation is inevitable; and ideological demarcation is all-encompassing; and very little, if anything, is immune from political considerations, regulations, and boycotts."

Sounds intriguing .
What will it look like in English?

World government based on a "scientifically reliable" formatted charter system.

 

[luiza]

formatted charter system.

And that ?

English will make all of our of lives easier .