Austria: we want Führer back

[Flagg]

But 40+% don't believe in creationism so they're cool. Even though they want a Hitlerite Strongman. Poll must be questioned!

[Simon_Jester]

Well, there has to be a spokesperson, right? Like, a Chancellor, a President... Like in every Nation of this Planet...

classic argumentum ad populum

As noted, "a strong man in charge" can easily refer to an elected head of government. We might describe Churchill as being "a strong man in charge" of WWII Britain, even though he was in no way a dictator.

[LaCroix]

Thank you , Simon. For example, Merkel would certainly classify as a "strong woman in charge"

How exactly, Hamstray, do you think politics would work if Austria would send a comittee of, like 5 people, to every international conference? Someone has to represent the State. People usually choose someone with strong opinions, and the will to stand for them, when it comes to leading and representing a country.

[Flagg]

Well the article at least has it translated as "strong leader" as opposed to "strongman", which I missed. Nothing wrong with a strong leader. Unless it directly translates into "strongman" which is a loaded term with negative implications. Like, Churchill would be a "strong leader" while Stalin would be a "strongman".

[Panzersharkcat]

Google brings up absolutely nothing about them except in reference to this supposed poll (and one link to something about marketing), which leads me to believe it's probably a hoax.
https://www.google.com/search?q=linz+ma ... e&ie=UTF-8

The "one link about marketing," is that this one?
http://www.market.at/

That's them - they do all sorts of marketing research and opinion polling.

I can't find this particular poll in their archive, but that doesn't mean much.

Well, I thought it wasn't it since the name didn't match up exactly (it comes out to Institute for Market, Opinion and Media Research).

[Hamstray]

How exactly, Hamstray, do you think politics would work if Austria would send a comittee of, like 5 people, to every international conference? Someone has to represent the State. People usually choose someone with strong opinions, and the will to stand for them, when it comes to leading and representing a country.

You don't need to lead a country to represent it.

[Simon_Jester]

And yet virtually all nations see a need for a designated head of government, who we routinely call a "leader" without any serious overtones of fascism.

[Thanas]

How exactly, Hamstray, do you think politics would work if Austria would send a comittee of, like 5 people, to every international conference? Someone has to represent the State. People usually choose someone with strong opinions, and the will to stand for them, when it comes to leading and representing a country.

You don't need to lead a country to represent it.

You need however not be a pushover or a weakling.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Having strong leaders is imperative, otherwise you become Greece. Yeah, first bend over to the IMF and fuck the poor and then bend over to the labour unions to keep them safe. It worked perfectly.

[Hamstray]

You need however not be a pushover or a weakling.

The degree of concentration of power accepted is an indicator for submissiveness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, there has to be a spokesperson, right? Like, a Chancellor, a President... Like in every Nation of this Planet...

classic argumentum ad populum

That is not what he means. Every nation on earth has some sort of head of government in their executive branch who is popularly referred to as being "in charge" or that the current government is "theirs". It is a shorthand in language use, and does not indicate whether or not that person is a dictator or anything like that.

It is just a verbal shortcut. Easy to miscast as meaning something else by someone with an agenda, but it does not actually mean anything other than a strong head of government.

[Simon_Jester]

Hamstray, this is silly.

I see two possibilities. One is that for you this is just a rhetorical thing- you're trying to make it into an absolute, so as to take advantage of ambiguity in the way we define words. Like saying "a ham sandwich is better than nothing, nothing is better than eternal happiness, therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness." It has the form of a logical argument, but it's prima facie absurd when you actually try to read it as a sentence in English that makes sense.


The other is that you're calling for something that ordinary people wouldn't even recognize as a government. Because that's what you get when you place no one in charge, have collective responsibility for everything, and have no clearly defined chain of authority or responsibility. Which is not to say that's bad or wrong, but if you're a funky type of anarchist or something I'd like to know in advance so I don't accidentally strawman you.

[LaCroix]

You don't need to lead a country to represent it.

And if you don't have the authority to actually make the things you agree to happen, you cannot represent the country, politically. Other nations get extremely annoyed when representatives sign treaties and fail to have them ratified by their parliaments. So the representative must also be a leader, by default.

[Hamstray]

Hamstray, this is silly.

I see two possibilities. One is that for you this is just a rhetorical thing- you're trying to make it into an absolute, so as to take advantage of ambiguity in the way we define words. Like saying "a ham sandwich is better than nothing, nothing is better than eternal happiness, therefore a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness." It has the form of a logical argument, but it's prima facie absurd when you actually try to read it as a sentence in English that makes sense.


The other is that you're calling for something that ordinary people wouldn't even recognize as a government. Because that's what you get when you place no one in charge, have collective responsibility for everything, and have no clearly defined chain of authority or responsibility. Which is not to say that's bad or wrong, but if you're a funky type of anarchist or something I'd like to know in advance so I don't accidentally strawman you.

The later is close. Lacking a hierarchy does not necessarily equate to not having a political structure, so no I would not consider myself an anarchist. I've mentioned delegative democracy so that should have given you a hint. What I'm advocating for is political structure that is not based upon persons holding some concentration of power. People are corruptible and intransparent.

[Thanas]

You need some persons holding a concentration of power in order for Government to work. Namely, the chancellor (leader of Government) needs to hold enough power to get his political aims fulfilled as much as is possible. Otherwise you have not a democracy, but anarchy.

Besides, all of that is total nonsense when related to the poll in the article, as the question was clearly posed to mean "within existing government structure".

[LaCroix]

I've looked up your delegative democracy, and there are some obvious flaws in it.

There is a "pool" of people who can be voted on as delegates to represent you in some function (more or less a one-time event, in the ideal case)

These people not being paid for being available, which will mean that only people who can easily drop their work on a whim are truly eligible.

How are these people controlled? There is an unknown person sent to represent you, for example, at a UN meeting. Next meeting, someone else will be sent. How will there be any continuity? You don't know little or nothing about the person you are sending somewhere, there is no history you can build on to verify if that person will do what is good for everyone or just act on their personal opinion. Or are these people sent with a pre-made set of instructions? If so - why not simply have the same poor sod running everywhere, if you hand-feed him his lines?

How does this system prevent people to send the same delegate, over and over, because he has worked well? Which would mean that that person is a de-facto "leader/strong man".

Also, how will you keep the voters interested in politics if they have to vote on every little piece of crap that comes up?

[Broomstick]

These polls are often asked in the wrong manner to make the results seem a lot more misleading than they were.

^ That was my first thought.

Also, saying "we want a strong leader" is NOT the same as "we want Hitler back".

[Hamstray]

How are these people controlled? There is an unknown person sent to represent you, for example, at a UN meeting. Next meeting, someone else will be sent. How will there be any continuity? You don't know little or nothing about the person you are sending somewhere, there is no history you can build on to verify if that person will do what is good for everyone or just act on their personal opinion. Or are these people sent with a pre-made set of instructions? If so - why not simply have the same poor sod running everywhere, if you hand-feed him his lines?

They would be sent on a pre-made set of instructions. People with good history will most likely keep getting sent. People with bad history will suffer immediate repercussions.

How does this system prevent people to send the same delegate, over and over, because he has worked well? Which would mean that that person is a de-facto "leader/strong man".

He's not a leader if he has no power internally but is merely a representative.

Also, how will you keep the voters interested in politics if they have to vote on every little piece of crap that comes up?

They don't have to but they can. Voters which have no means of participation in the democratic process lose interest in politics very quickly, as is the case in the current system.
Disinterested voters lack the judgment to appoint experts into their corresponding offices. A lot of them tend to vote based on emotion rather than reason. Elections become trivialized into some sort of popularity contest. Politicians skills get reduced to that of getting elected. Those best at deception and able to cover up their faults get into power.