@Thucy
"And so, if you want to know how I meant hijacked, I meant hijacked from our legitimate position."
Gotcha.
"Or do you openly admit that you reject democracy or at least do not pursue it, and instead embrace our oligarchy?"
This is kind of a non sequitur, eh? I'm with Churchill on this (and not just because I mostly use that opening when I play England): democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest. More than that, I accept oligarchy as fact, indeed as permanent fact. Wholesale equality just isn't in the cards -- ever. We can sometimes approach various kinds of equality that can be mostly widespread, and I'm all in favor of that, since it tends to be safer, but I think it's naive to believe that oligarchy can be done away with. It's pretty much a permanent part of the human condition.
But this is not to say that we should *embrace* oligarchy. I certainly don't. Or that we should treat democracy as some sort of unimportant or misguided goal. I certainly don't think it is. But what the people need, **most fundamentally**, is not control over political decision-making: what the people need are rights and freedoms -- freedom to speak, freedom to learn (especially to learn to read), freedom to write, freedom to work, freedom to worship. It *happens* that this is more likely to obtain when the political system is more democratic than when it is less so. But democracy is a good choice much more for *practical* reasons than for *moral* ones.
(I personally think the *ideal* form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship or a truly enlightened despotism, where political equality would be gone but civil-societal rights would still be maintained. But of course I would certainly never advocate for installing such a government, not one run by people anyway. The "benevolent" and "truly enlightened" parts are antithetical to sinful human nature and would disappear fast.)
live game
to Join. WTA
)
)
)
)