No Self-Determination for Those Determined to Destroy Us
Who decides who the "enemies of mankind" are? You?
Communism Is Monopoly Capitalism
No.
No.
Doubling the number of seats sounds like a reasonable proposition. The devil's in the details, of course, particularly how it specifically affects the political balance of power.
Yes.
Certainly not.
It means that the courts can't arbitrarily deprive us of rights that ought to be ours because they aren't specifically enumerated in the constitution. One of the rights that we have successfully asserted (in political struggle) against efforts to deprive us of it on those grounds is the right to privacy, which is the basis for Roe v. Wade among other important legal victories.
Most of the part pertaining to the powers of the states was superseded by the 14th Amendment. However, it reiterates that the Constitution limits the power of the federal government, and prohibits the exercise of powers not granted to it, and notes that those powers can legitimately be exercised either by the states or by the people.
Again a case of "devil in the details." Easier for whom? Congress, state legislatures, citizen initiative, a new constitutional convention?
Well, at the risk of sounding like a would-be totalitarian censor, I'd say that politically speaking I don't trust you. Your blend of ultra-egalitarianism, anti-intellectualism, contempt for theory, anti-humanism, and anti-Marxism is reminiscent of Pol Pot.
I agree with many of your conclusions. I disagree though with the 2nd amendment as it is interpreted today, the Heller decision was wrong. The details are the key to changing the law but if we solve all the problems here among us, what will the experts have to do but screw it all up?
Free Yourself From Your Conceited Guru Tricksters
This is healthy. What is not is taking the default positions of pragmatism and empiricism (meaning in practice: accommodation to the status quo) because your anti-theory theoretical background assumptions blind you to the dialectical nature of reality.
I make no compunction about comparing people to Hitler if I think they deserve it. Your own ideology appears more Pol Potist than Hitlerite to me. If you say that "some" (and clearly when you compare the masses to "savages" you mean "most") people are subhuman and deserve to die, you can't be surprised to be compared to some monster or another.
Marx was recruited to the Communist League, a working-class movement, before becoming a co-founder of the First International. He later joined the workers in fighting efforts by anarchists (i.e., middle-class ideologues) to take over the International. Throughout his political career, he was in intimate contact with the working class, with whom he participated in strikes, demonstrations, and pressure campaigns. He sometimes criticized the workers for being undisciplined, or for being in thrall to bourgeois ideology and therefore conservative, but these criticisms were always made with the aim of strengthening the working class and the political weapon he helped it forge.
Yet you feel qualified to speak on Marx's views as if you were an expert. What exactly is so nightmarish about the USSR in Lenin's time, or Castro's Cuba? Is Marx responsible for the Stalinist counterrevolutionary counterfeit of communism that was built on the struggle (ideological and political/military) against his views? Isn't that like saying that Napoleon's France was based on Rousseau's Social Contract?
Marx gets sorry treatment from politicians but in fact, he was one of the greatest thinkers of the last 300 years. Was he right in regards to the eventual collapse of capitalism? Sure looks like it to me, his timing was a bit off though. Marx talked about much more than just economics, his work crossed many disciplines. The guy really put it to the emerging model of capitalism as it grew out of mercantilism. Just because Lenin co-opted him is no reason not to consider his writings important. Most PHDs in philosophy consider him one of the most important thinkers of all time, that does not mean they agree with everything he said though. If you know anything about philosophy you will agree that very few philosophers agreed on anything at all, that is why they kept writing and castigating each other down the ages.
The God That Failed
Since yours is a permanent student's substitute for religion, the key to Martin Luther's failure to change the world for the better was that he didn't reject his basic creed for leading to the tyranny and corruption of the Catholic Church, just like you foolishly stick with Marx after rejecting his inevitable Stalinist spawn.
I'd say his influence on Lenin is all the more reason to consider him important.
Not at all. I said that you have an anti-theory ideology because you attack the foundations of theoretical analysis ... education and intellectual cognition.
But Luther did change the world for the better, didn't he? And other Christians--Calvin, Muntzer, Wilberforce, King--even more so?
Karl Marx, the Trophy Husband of a Duchess Getting Even With Her Parents
Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Should Have It Shoved Down His Throat
Marx was not in fact the husband of a duchess. He was, however, educated at university, and the theory he helped come up with based on his university studies gave the socialist movement the tools it needed to take state power in Russia, one of the world's great empires, within 2 generations. V.I. Lenin, the principal strategic architect of the revolution there, was also university-educated.
Armchair psychology aside, the fact remains that Lenin led a revolution that
