>It depends on how they withdraw their consent.  If he withdraws his consent
by robbing a bank, it's 7 to 15 in a prison of their choice. If he withdraws
his consent by practicing medicine without a license, the criminal penalty
might be less, but the malpractice judgment might run into the millions.  If
he withdraws his support by leaving the country, nothing.

I cannot withdraw my support without having to leave the country(unless I
want to face penalties)?  Now I know why you call it a government.
Repressive, I must say.

>People who desire power will act to accumulate power whether they are in
your org or not.  If they are in your org, they will corrupt your org.  If
they are in a different org that has relations with your org, they will be
in a cold war with your org.

There are a small percentage of power hunger people and their are a small
percentage of corruptfree people.
But, 80-90 percentage of the population, once put in power over others, will
abuse their authority in one way or another.

Therefore, unless you know how to detect those who are “corruptfree” people,
or you state that all humans are in fact angles, your “social democracy”
would have corruption and repression and, once again, human suffering.

Not much of an ideal, if you ask me.

>> I see that is why you cannot support the idea of decentralized power
organizations because you believe they will act like centralized ones.

>I didn't say anything of the kind.  Decentralized power is fine with me.

Because it is no different to centralized power(your assumption is false)
and you advocate that.

>> Therefore, you see centralized power as a solution to curb human
nasteness.  In reality, it does not curb it, instead, it acts like an
exaggerator and, in your mind, reinforces the need for governments(how SAD!!!!).

>No, an org *is* a centralization of power.

It is centralization of power but does not have a centralized power
structure(like a “social democracy”).  I refering to an org I would advocate.

>> If Martin, you were right, that decentralized and centralized
organizations acted the same, then decentralized orgs would bring chaos and
centralized would bring order and I would choose the orderly one anyday.

>No, I think drugs should be legalized.  I think the Olympics should be
discontinued.

Legalized means that the centralized organization(the STATE) will not punish
you for using a drug that they can now make money off of.

>> The five year plan will start by killing all the good hunters in the
tribe and then killing all the smart Indians in the tribe and ......

>Why would you do that?  It would be immoral; it would be stupid, and you
would find yourself being stuffed through an ice hole.

That was in response to your comment of “I think you better develop a new
five year plan.” which I read as a Stalin reference and went along with the
spirit of the joke.
I was trying to be funny, I know, I failed.

>> If anything the smart ones are the ones who DON'T vote because they have
>> already realized that eating a cheesecake will have more effect on their
>> lives then voting!

>Not voting is lazy and stupid.

HA!  

> If I suddenly found myself in your perfect world, maybe even in your
perfect org, I would probably go along with it as long as it worked smoothly.

The thing is, you cannot just find yourself in it.  The point is you must
struggle for it(because our current situation hates the idea of it).  And,
even when it becomes “perfect”, the fight needed to keep people happy and
living together peacefully will never end.  The fact is though, it is a lot
easier to do it in my sort of ideal then yours or even the current society.

> When it ran into problems, I would begin working for implementation of a
social democracy, and I'm quite sure that in an anarchist org under stress,
I could convince most of the people to move toward social democracy. And
that is what would happen, if I were there.

You will be telling people, who are use to making decisions for themselves,
that they are not capable and you must create a power structure which
removes their god-given-right to decide what is best for them.

The only way you could pull this off if your members were complete fools.
Or if the media wasn’t also decentralized and democratic, then you can just
lie and convince the rest of them that they need you to rule them.

>You didn't read what Adler wrote.  Universal suffrage refers to the
universal right to vote.  That is a necessary condition for social
democracy, not a sufficient one.

Everyone in the US has the right to vote.  How far have they come?

Well, not everyone, the people who have committed crimes against the state
can’t vote, but it is there fault for withdrawing their consent.  Right Martin?

Milutin

--
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal