View Single Post
  #32  
Old 03-27-2006, 03:09 PM
KSig RC KSig RC is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
Quote:
Originally posted by AlphaFrog
I don't agree with the rest of his post, but I don't get what's to debate about the part that was quoted.

We only have (2) two (major) political parties, and if you take (1)one away (=)you get (1)totalitarianism. 2-1=1 What's so hard about that? Yes, it's unlikely that either party would take a dive, but theoretically, it could happen. I believe that's what his point was.
Totalitarianism does not equal single-party system - while the ideologies would intersect, they are simply not interchangable terms. I hate to get all semantic (possibly semiotic), but seriously.

A totalitarian regime would be, by definition, 'single-party' in that all opposition would be crushed - but a single party system does not guarantee totalitarian authority over all matters. It's a necessary but not sufficient condition - hence, if you 'get his point' you're making a mistaken logical leap, which is most certainly an error.
Reply With Quote