Paul, I'm not quite sure how you can arrive at this conclusion when you clearly know very little about what I think. You're also missing a trick here in saying 'motherland' when it should surely have been 'fatherland'. ;)
Dam it Oliver - Your right! although it wouldn't have any sense outside of a puerile racist slur - but it would have been funny enough to deserve use anyway! by mustard who says all germans are humourlessly procumbent.
Lets be clear - I am certainly not debating the accuracy of your facts, figures and research regarding the election of Hilter.
Without doubt you are a great source of knowledgeable on the events, thank you for its imparting.
However it only serves to support my one arguments Against voting and democracy.
As one of the major flaws of democracy its regardless of best intentions of the original initiators - representative democracies when implemented on a large scale are easily open to corruption and subversion.
My other arguments are:
A majority consensus does not validate or prove any argument.
Its a completely ilogical way to make any decision.
When the majority take actions that directly infringe on individual liberty it is immoral. The only purpose of government should be the defence of liberty and nothing else.
However were we most probably disagree is on what alternative forms of government could be implimented in replacement of democracy.
But That is for another thread - all I want is a sticker for my letterbox.
Dam it Oliver - Your right! although it wouldn't have any sense outside of a puerile racist slur - but it would have been funny enough to deserve use anyway! by mustard who says all germans are humourlessly procumbent.
Lets be clear - I am certainly not debating the accuracy of your facts, figures and research regarding the election of Hilter.
Without doubt you are a great source of knowledgeable on the events, thank you for its imparting.
However it only serves to support my one arguments Against voting and democracy.
As one of the major flaws of democracy its regardless of best intentions of the original initiators - representative democracies when implemented on a large scale are easily open to corruption and subversion.
My other arguments are:
A majority consensus does not validate or prove any argument.
Its a completely ilogical way to make any decision.
When the majority take actions that directly infringe on individual liberty it is immoral. The only purpose of government should be the defence of liberty and nothing else.
However were we most probably disagree is on what alternative forms of government could be implimented in replacement of democracy.
But That is for another thread - all I want is a sticker for my letterbox.