> Justinian I wrote:

> Newb,

1)  According to a falsified theory it is. A theory is only good IF it is not disproven from experience. Centralization, however, has been disproven as an efficient means over and over again.

2)  A theory is only good if it's backed by experience. If it's not, it's a bad theory.

3)  As for red tapes, I agree you need some. But you can keep them to a bare minimum. The red tapes we have now are ABSURD.
4)  It can easily take years to fire a teacher, even for something as bad as having an inappropriate relationship with a student.
_______________________________________________________________
1)  It's still a theory.  I still say that Centralization is the most efficient means IF the one(s) in power are over 95% habitually trustworthy...otherwise it's "hell" for their underlings.

2)  Perhaps, perhaps not.

3)  There's a reason for some much red tape.  It's to make it increasintly difficult to implement centralization.
4)  That's because the justice system doesn't take the "why" a law is put into place but rather ONLY focuses on the "what" it is.

"I will fight for your right to be wrong!" << S.G. Tallentyre
"I am a flexible centrist: not stuck on right-wing, not stuck on left-wing, and not stuck on centre...and I don't flip-flop either" <<< me
Fighting for peace is like stopping the raping of a virgin.

"Its the econ part that gets people confused. To flints defence, it had some extreme left aspects in it. To your defence alan, the social model was undoubtably extreme right. Now I generalise, hoping you all understand what I said, but I'm willing to explain it further."

It might have indeed, the Nazi party combined loads of different ideas that seemed incompatible, yet I think you can't really call the nazi economic policy as left. The heavy input of the government into economic activities was a general aspect in the whole of the western world at that time. The economy had collapsed and it required governmental input to recover, wich is indeed a leftist idea, but at that time, it was a survival-technique and liberalism was virtually dead. That way it's not necessarily leftist.
The Nazi-party denied any form of unions, wich of all is a leftist thing. It adopted corporatism, as it was suggested by right wing parties and the pope in the "Rerum Novarum"-encyclical. On top of that, people that were in favour of the Nazi-ideas were heavily against anything that was socialist.

"I totally understand what you said and agree with your analysis.
Hitler's social model is something I disagree with.
He had the Pope's blessing.
(which the Vatican vehementally denied after Germany won the war, until about the 1990's where they then admitted it was true but added a twist to it to justify their foolishness)"

Fascism doesn't have anything to do with the pope or catholicism. According to wiki, Fascism is:
"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity."
All that applies to the Nazi-party..

"Erm not true"

What exactly?

All that you said are to be interpreted as measures to restart the economic growth again. It required governmental actions wich might be considered leftist-inspired, but the intentions were never leftist. Hitler wanted his economy to boost so that he had a robust economy that could support his international plans, not to make things better for the Germans. Leftist ideas don't equal a leftist government or ideals.

>>>"Well Obama's said his piece. I found him trying hard to move to the center and to Christianity. He is going to severely upset a lot of Democrats."
The centre I don't know but you are right about christianity. It idd will upset the hardcore atheist but on the other hand he defended themes like abortion wich is very popular in that environement.<<<

And atheists make up what, 2% of your population, maybe, I'm a card carrying member of the "Adults Shouldn't Have Imaginary Friends Club" myself but I don't think anyone can honestly consider upsetting the atheist population an issue.

LOL good luck with that justin

"I am going to expand the Atheist population in the US by illustrating the powers of reason to those Christians. Once they discover reason, and how it can enrich their lives, they will never return to Christianity."

Justin why don't you just try breaking down a wall with a frozen cod.  Christians don't care about reason, facts, evidence, or understanding they believe what they believe and unfortunately no amount of explanation or education will change that for most of them.

"I am going to expand the Atheist population in the US by illustrating the powers of reason to those Christians. Once they discover reason, and how it can enrich their lives, they will never return to Christianity."

Yes, I hope you succeed, but as I've noticed, there's nothing that can convert them.. You can never beat the "yes that's what god did to shed the true believers from the corrupted" in a rational way. I know a few ardent christians (well, 2), and whatever the discussion is about, evolution-theory, creationism, omnipotence, and so on. At the time you corner them with rational thoughts, they utter that one, and you can't rationally break that down..

"In USA we have a very behavioralist interpretation of political ideology--the ACT matters more than the strict interpretation or intent.  Comes of having onyl 2 serious parties.  "Leftist is as leftist does""

behavioralism has been discredited and abandoned for quite some time over here

"I became a Christian due to using reasoning and logic to then propel me to using faith."

Strict logic only allows a Deist god, and even that is doubtful.

And indeed, there aren't many true believers in Belgium, and I don't mind them either. But they should accept religion's boundaries.. Those christians I know believe in creationism etc, wich really is stupidity.

"Thanks. I know there's some real problems that I'll encounter, but it's possible I'll find a solution smile.
Now to be honest, since Europeans favor post-modernism and Continental Philosophy, I think they are unqualified to "disprove" any kind of philosophical theory."

No, you can't rationally destroy an idea that's not rational.

"Behaviorism has been very medically useful. The alternatives really just suck compared to Behaviorism, and it isn't so "discredited" in the sense that it continues to advance. A European argument that it's reductionist isn't an overriding criticism."

We were talking behaviourism in History, wich has been discredited and abandoned (well, mostly)..

McCain had the freedom to say those positions out loud, because the crows and the host were all McCain fans

If I were Obama i would have never agreed to that forum, unless some of my voters were in the mix aswell, which they really weren't

"behavioralism has been discredited and abandoned for quite some time over here "

yes, rejection of behaviorialism is a defining characteristic of the new Europe