Wow. Completely missed that one, too. Don't check the news for like 2 days and this is what you get. Two key points in that Reuters report: ----------- Anti-government protesters have staged daily demonstrations outside parliament demanding Gyurcsany step down amid the worst violence in Hungary since the fall of communism in 1989. [...] Gyurcsany, who campaigned promising tax cuts, reversed tack when he won re-election and announced big tax rises and spending cuts to try to plug the budget deficit which at 10.1 percent of gross domestic product is the biggest in the European Union. [Emphazises mine] -------------- Those Anti-gonvernment protesters have my vote. The late Robert Lefevre, friggin smart guy imho, once said: "Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." Amen to that. Government should provide inner and outer security, and collect taxes in so far as neccessary for these goals. AND THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP. Government is there for the people, not vise-versa. And the people themselves know best what's good for them, who needs bureacrats telling them? Bureaucrat, don't stick your head into business which is NONE of YOURS. People would need to be educated for that? Yeah, they will educate themselves, no worries. The state does not educate, it INDOCTRINATES. Yes, this is a radical approach, and in reality it will never work like that (if only because too many people are buying into the lies of government promising them nanny-states). But it is the right HEADING. Regards heartc
Just like last month. Nothing special. (It was the 50th anniversary of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, so they had to do something.)
This might very well be possible. I'm not much into Hungarian domestic policy. Will you enlighten me, then? The above was a knee-jerk reaction, I'll admit. And that knee-jerk reaction came from that: I believe in democracy. And one of the biggest threats to democracy is a government lying to the people to win elections, and then doing the opposite of what they promised. This happens often, but there are more and less severe cases. This is no government then, but a fraud, and has no business in governing the people. When the people start burning it down then, they are doing the right thing. No matter what else agenda or preferences those people might have. They are still right. Or we can just get rid of democracy. If they were lied to, they ought to burn it down - maybe not literally, if it's avoidable, but still. So, what else point did I miss? Regards heartc
This whole thing started back in 2002 - when right wing party FIDESZ lost the elections. Its agile chairman, Viktor Orbán and his demagogue group suddenly lost power (and money, too - no more million dollar journeys, no more shady businesses whitewashed by the government). Since then, they eagerly want to get this power back, so they have to "keep the revs up", they have to stir people up to show their potency, and to get the votes.
OK. This might very well be the truth, since I already said I have not much of an idea about Hungarian policy. But this still seems to not touch the point I was making: When they lie to win the election, they have no business governing the people. No matter what. What you have to know about the approach I am taking is also this: It's a two sided coin: The politicians must not lie to the people, so that the people can make their decision based on what those politicians said. The other side of that coin though is what Churchill said: "Democracy is not perfect. But it makes sure that the people are governed by the government they deserve." There is some sarcasm (or British humor) in it, meaning that also when the people are stupid or asshats, and elect asshats to make shit ideas into reality, they will also have to live with the shit outcomes and are responsible for their own misery then. In a democracy, there are no "innocent civilians". There are voters, and the majority decided, which then is representing the people, so all that will happen in this and to this country is the responsibility of "the people" then. No innocents there. Extreme example: Us, the Germans, VOTING for Hitler back then. But this doesn't work when people vote for specific individuals or parties because of what they said, but those are then doing the opposite. It fucks up the whole system, and this is not good for anyone imho. And least for democracy.
I agree with you. In an ideal world, governments shouldn't lie to the people that voted them in power and get away with it. However, since we don't live in an ideal world, you have to be realistic enough to realize that no government in existence will refrain from lying when they think it serves to their advantage.
I hear ya. Why people lie, politics suck and all that jazz. I honestly can't name any governments that didn't lie to get the votes. We can go childish and explore who lied more and bigger, but they all lied. That's not right. Can you change it? I can't. Weed and alcohol driven kids on the streets can't change it either, especially because they simply don't know why they're there, except for having fun! And I don't want to stay behind the doors in my hometown because of them.
The majority are not capable of this, but politicians want to get their votes, too. That leads to lying. Politicians won't get enough votes for telling the dry facts.
You are of course speaking the truth here. But THIS IS why my initial knee-jerk reaction was positive towards the protesters, in that they THIS TIME do NOT let the government get AWAY WITH IT just like that. Of course, what fucketeer says might be right - that the government this time is actually the "good guys", and the protesters are the idiots. But this is the cost of democracy, as Churchill tried to explain. Let them have it, and let them learn. In the long run, this will be the best way. Note however, that "far right wing" means different things to different people, as you know. In Germany, "far right wing" are the Neo-Nazis. And demagouge leftists, semi-commies, would prolly even call me a Nazi just because I am against the collectivist and anti-individualist approach, which is crazy because both the Commies and the Nazis were collectivists. The left and far right are so close to each other they don't even realize they are in each other's asses. In the US, "far right wing" are the anti-government, gun toting ("from my cold dead fingers") individualist romantics, as you know, who value traditional ideas of believe in God and independence - so what is right wing in a former Eastern Block country? Pro-West? Pro-free market? Pro-for their own country to be independent from the bureaucrat monster the EU is? Because they already had poor experiences with another collectivist monstrum which was the Soviet-Union? Or are they people wishing back the times they were allied with Nazi-Germany? Recon that under Stalin's regime, even the "Social Democrats", "Sozialdemokraten", were considered far right wingers and thrown into the GULAG. What is far right wing in Hungary? Right wing means different things to different people, in different times, and is often just used to silence the opposition. Regards heartc
OK. I cannot argue with that in the end. You are right. And what you just came up with is actually yet another thing Chruchill put very well back then: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But I also think it's about the *heading* a country takes. A heading which will determine "how bad" the democracy will be. More bad or less bad. And when people take to the streets to burn down a government which just frankly lied to them, I cannot help but feel sympathy for them. Regards heartc P.S. If you people got the impression I'm somewhat of a Churchill fan, you are right. I wish there were more statesmen like him. He had a shitload of kick-ass ideas packed into kick-ass quotes, and he won the friggin World War against Fascism (albeit not alone). Statesmen like him are a gift of God for this world, or it would be even darker.
Churchill's motives were like a brook that runs deep. He had a lot of support from a lot of 'groups.' he was propped up while in financial crisis and seeing his holding about to be forfeit. he was bailed out in his dark times and he never forgot his 'friends.' I don't know about the morality or rightness of his policy making once he gained power, but I do know he was not a simple man and his motives were not entirely above reproach. That said...... You mention a word I entirely like "statesman." there are politicians and there are statesmen, I believe a statesman is more a servant of his people than a politician. And I do belive also, Mr Churchill was a Statesman, as was Mr Rooseveldt [the franklin, not the teddy, I can, at times, depending on my mood, hold Teddy in contempt or elevate him]. I also think Pierre Trudeau was a Statesman, a nation shaper. But I could be biased, as I am Canadian. I say, Hear Hear for Statesmen! And kill and eat politicians. A politician desires power. A statesman wields power. Different tenses and intents. I agree a government has responsibilities other than the maintaining of it's power. When a government thinks of itself as power, there lies a foolish deception, for PEOPLE are power, not government. Yeah, I am a libertarian, sort of. Sad about Hungary
men, they started up a tank produced in 1944 and became a statue long ago... that years soviets really knew how to make good reliable things.
In Crete there are still people with MP-40s, BMW R75s and even heard one that had a panzer of some sort in his barn. Crazy people...
