Chaos Marine
Well-known member
Rules for thee but not for me!
The Americas The Tyranny of Trudeau's Canada
- Thread starter Chaos Marine
- Start date
Rules for thee but not for me!
Do not worry,citizen.It would happen,when 10 wave of CV hit us.Or maybe 17?
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
"Rules for thee but not for me" is a spectacularly efficient way at losing the public's respect. And in the long run you cannot rule without that. Oh they might try and "rule by fear" (completely misreading Machiavelli I might add) but they aren't very intimidating people. Stalin was one scary bastard whilst Trudeau is a helpless milksop.
When the majority is forced to accommodate the needs of the minority, it is no longer a democracy.
It is tyranny.
It is tyranny.
No, what you describe is not a democracy nor tyranny, but a constitutional government that respects rights. Accommodating needs of a minority is what is needed, because individual rights matter more than what the group votes for. In Ayn Rand's words: The smallest minority is the individual.
And then you get the Pronoun Division of the Thought Police breaking down your door at midnight because you misgendered a girl who is a guy who literally looks likes a girl who also kind of looks like a guy.
It's easy to be a champagne socialist or an armchair activist but all those people suddenly disappear from the left and right wings when someone like Stalin or Hitler sits their corpulent arse in the leader's chair.
And Ayn Rand was the kind of person that opposed the Vietnam draft but also called draft dodgers "bums". Classic moderate fence sitter, or in modern terms, a helluva RINO.
Yeah, that's not a need.
So why was Stalin and Hitler bad? Maybe some of it had to do with them murdering groups of people who disagreed with the majority? Sorta sounds like what I was describing right? Neither accommodated the needs of minority populations.
She wasn't a RINO, as she wasn't a Republican. Never claimed to be one. She was an objectivist (basically a libertarian). And in no way was Rand a fence sitter, lol.
No, that is the tyranny of the minority still. It is forced. It is forcing the will of a few upon a many. Accommodation is not force.
I mean then one cannot be forced to accommodate anything.
But no, it's not tyranny to force people to not kill off minority populations even if they vote for it, for example. In fact, the US government is defined by putting the rights of the individual above the wants of the many. Hence you can't have neighbors vote to shut you up, close your church, etc.
What the hell are you talking about? You are conflating two separate issues. That is not forcing your will on others, and using the state to enforce your will on others.
edit: I find it amusing a supposed libertarian wants to use the state to enforce the will of a few upon the many. That is literally a few telling the many how they should live their lives, and no one has a right to do that, do they not?
Trudeau's Canada is literally defined by a lack of respect for minority populations, like small church groups, people who don't want to get vaccinated, etc. It's basically a tyranny of the majority. Giving people basic rights (which are all that are needed), even to disfavored minorities, is the point behind the US constitution.
And that's what is entirely missing from the original statement I objected to:
It's a very wrong quote. If the word "needs" was "wants", then it would at least be correct about it being tyranny. But the quote still wouldn't reflect what is happening in Canada.
What's happening in Canada isn't a Tyranny of the Minority, but of the Majority. The majority of people are willing to vote for someone who they know will enforce tyrannical laws that force speech on people who refuse to do it (which would be the minority). I.e., The majority (people who will vote for a pro LGBT politician) is refusing to accommodate the minority (people who refuse to use non-birth pronouns).
Quite bluntly, the quote is something Trudeau would agree with, though never admit he did so because of how bad it is.
Again, there is a difference between not tyrannizing a minority or group and forcing other people to cater to their needs. Being forced is not a democracy, people should care about their about their fellow citizens- because they are fellow citizens. Accommodation should be part of the civic process, not mandated from top down.
Trudeau was elected by less of the popular vote than the conservatives. He literally does not have any sort of majority mandate, he is literally representing only a third of the population.
No. There's a difference between not catering to someone's wants and not tyrannizing them. But needs are different (note my definition of need is fairly narrow, and relates only to rights, like going to church, speech, bearing arms, etc.). By phrasing wants as needs, you give ground to people who want to demand speech from others.
And yes, it's not democracy, because democracy is flawed because of the tyranny of the majority. That's why the US doesn't have a democracy.
Eh, they voted for him to have enough of a vote to win by voting for parties that will agree with him (see: New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois). Also, polls like this for some of his policies:
But basically his policies would be wrong even if he had a majority because he violates human rights.
Canada’s indigenous health expert Carrie Bourassa loses job when ancestry claims prove false
@Captain X, what do you think about this fraud?
@Captain X, what do you think about this fraud?
personally I give her a five average for a woman her age, with some make up and work I think she could make it to a six or seven.
the next struggle will be for transracial people.
Weird flex, but OK.
As a Canadian, surprised am I not given what Trudeau did to Jody Wilson Raybould over the SNC Lavalin affair.
So, any fellow Canadians going to stand up for our rights and freedoms in Ottawa?
I'm going some time this week to join my fellow freedom fighters.
I'm going some time this week to join my fellow freedom fighters.
