Unsurprisingly, what concern me most are personal freedoms and civil liberties.
Then since you have a most clear issue you have a general starting point. But I highly doubt you agree with the whole party platform of anything.
I have no desire to "hurt" you. I never "insulted" you. I never "assaulted" you. I never "baited" you. If you can't debate your political position without feeling hurt, insulted, assaulted, or baited, you should consider refraining from such discussions. Now stop building your defence on how much mean you think I am. This is a discussion forum, not kindergarten.
You mocked me by calling me an 11 year old, and you just mocked me again in your last sentence. I'd say that constitutes an insult or an assault against my image. It was certainly ad hominem.
I presume you
did try to get a rise out of me before. And still are. Thats why you throw out your bits of mocking, you want to make me angry and lose my control. I'm not rising to that though, but you don't seem to show any sign of changing. And I'd appreciate if you stopped.
Funnily enough, the concept of citizenship has nothing to do with the absolute power entrusted into the dictatura. You dig the Romans? That's ok, I kinda like them too. But having an elected official with dictatorial power is just a recipe for disaster.
Like I said, in addition to citizenship, Rome is usually held up as the ideal Republic. Its played a huge influence on governance around the world, and they are on to something with the
dictatura. Any society needs the ability to respond swiftly to crises and follow through on them. And everywhere I look I see over-politicization and deadlock.
Without increased executive powers (not absolute per se) that is going to make things progressively harder until some sort of external threat either destroys it or prompts higher executive power.
Who's mischaracterizing my position now?
You did say earlier that using Rome as an example was bad because of expansionism and crucifixion.
I'd also like to address this:
So what, and how? Do you know that the first KZs were built almost immediately on Hitler's rise to power? Dachau was opened on March 22nd, 1933! And what was it that powered the early Nazi economic boom? Arms build up! Preparation for the coming war! And stealing the Jews' money. How the hell can you seperate the warmongering and slavery in Nazi Germany economic policies from other policies?
And pretty much the same arguments go for Stalin also. In the 30s, the GULAG slave labour system was already running at full capacity, to say nothing of the repression and lack of freedom ordinary Russians had to suffer and their working conditions.
Please show me any objective economist, historian, or political scientist who would want to do like to replicate anything like that. Your glorification of murderous, totalitarian regimes is disgusting and pretty juvenile actually.
Not to defend it, but do you realize that Dachau started out simply as a camp for political prisoners? The term 'concentration camp' carries a particularly nasty connotation today, but its extremely common throughout history. The US even built them in the war. Only in fairly modern times have some nations abandoned the practice of imprisoning political enemies and dissenters. Its always distasteful though.
As to military rearmament, its not always bad. It gets people jobs, it makes national defense an easy proposition, and it gives you something valuable to export. Its when you decide to go on the warpath and conquer all your neighbors that it becomes a problem.
In case the nuance escaped you, appreciating some of the results and characteristics doesn't mean you want the entire system emulated. Thats your own false dichotomy.
I'm sorry some mod here feels the need to falsely accuse me of trolling, but it's incorrect. I wasn't trying to lure any response from you.
I'm not sure its false. It seems pretty damn likely to me that you've been trying to get a rise out of me for pages.
