Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Titanscape on 17/04/2010 19:34:37
-
Looking at people with personality disorders, seemingly people with blind consciences, I suppose that they gain other ways of being respected other than justice and conscientious means. People assume they have consciences. I think one disguise they use, is "socialism". Hitler, national "socialist". Stalin, extreme socialism, in communism.
Strange decisions made in the darkness of the bowels of the parliamentary systems. Somehow for the common good, social, but, in the process people are hard done by or must defy the conscience. A variation on the idea that the end justifies the means.
It is annoying that someone would push socialism on me. I hate going against my conscience. If something is social it should come from and accord the conscience. The latter is intelligent.
Socialism seems to me then, in this particular circumstance to be subversive. Holding the weight of people's interest against another aspect of good will or conscience.
I want to live in a just society, conscientious, a freedom to be compassionate, and loving...
I think from England came a great demonstration of good will in the politics of William Pitt, William Wilberforce, and Thomas Clarkson, slavery's end, the RSPCA, free education... hundreds of years later, Karl Marx. Now we have pensions, free medicine... but also Communism, poor economies, the Iron Curtain, nuclear war threats, forced atheism, injustices. I think good will is better. Slavery ending and the economy managing is better.
But psychopaths and narcissists do not pursue justice, socialism is a guise. They think conscience is madness, and that they are sane. So do they become respected through socialism or some other way?
-
Black cat is gay.
All gays are black cats.
I think this mistake is being made here..
Also, I don't buy that socialists are "against a conscience". I think the very reason they believe in socialism is because they see it as much fairer than capitalism.
-
Looking at people with personality disorders, seemingly people with blind consciences, I suppose that they gain other ways of being respected other than justice and conscientious means. People assume they have consciences. I think one disguise they use, is "socialism". Hitler, national "socialist". Stalin, extreme socialism, in communism.
Hitler's National Socialism was a fascist movement and had nothing to do with Socialism proper. Similarly, the regime controlled by Stalin had little resemblance to true Communism. You really need to find out what Socialism and Communism really mean before you go any further because your initial assumptions that those two regimes are, respectively, representative of socialism and communism are deeply flawed.
A couple of links to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)
-
In fact, one of the first things the Nazis did when in power was to go after the socialists in Germany!
-
I found this definition of socialism on Wikipedia
"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. A more comprehensive definition of socialism is an economic system that directly maximizes use-values as opposed to exchange-values and has transcended commodity production and wage labor, along with a corresponding set of social and economic relations, including the organization of economic institutions and method of resource allocation; often implying a method of compensation based on individual merit, the amount of labor expended or individual contribution."
Dictatorships - such as those Stalin and Hitler ruled - are despotic, one-person rule with the rest of the people under their control.
India is a socialist state.
(I wish I could spell)
-
With a bit of luck Britain might be a bit more socialist in a month's time.
-
In my experience, capitalism is a far less people driven system in its pure form than socialism. Both systems have Major flaws and the ultimate would be a combination of the two. Then the only downfall would be having politicians running them as politicians are inherently corrupt and I think genetically disposed to being dishonest.....maybe the ultimate would be to do away with politicians as well. Yes..that is definitely the way, a political system without politicians....that will get my vote.
-
The most fundamental problem is that those who seek positions of power and authority over others are ipso facto those least suited to being granted that power and authority. Politicians fall squarely into this category.
The only solution to that, that I can see, is to introduce a sort of political national service where people are 'called up' to serve their country as politicians for a fixed period of time.
While I don't think that competence would actually be that much of an issue (because the career politicians we already have are hardly making a very good job of things), such a scheme could have considerable impact upon business and commerce due to key people being 'called up' for political service, the duration of which would have to be at least a couple of years to be effective.
Many, if not most people too, would not want to be 'drafted' into political service but then the whole idea of introducing such a scheme is to avoid putting those who actively seek power and authority over others into such a position. I suppose that there could also be the option of reducing the compulsory length of service for those who perform well, similar to the practice of reducing prison sentences by giving 'time off' for good behaviour.
-
There is something in the view that we end up with the type of politicians we want. That is not what most people think is the case, but when most of the populace can't be bothered with the details of actual policy and want very simplistic criteria on which to base their vote, that is what you get. Fifty years ago, at least there was some philosphical differences between the parties. There still is to some extent in that some people would vote for a monkey as long as it was wearing the right colour of rosette. But now this is mixed in with a personal popularity contest of manufactured personalities guided by a host of spin doctors and media experts (Gordon does not do well here of course).
Actually most politicians do their best to act in the public interest (I can't believe I just said that) and are in a job in which they ultimately must eventually fail in. "The evil that men do lives on. The good is oft interred with there bones." is as true today as it was in Shakespeare's day (or in Julius Ceasar's).
A democracy only works with an informed populace; and that we are not for the most part. I think proportional representation helps here, despite its inherent problems. It does create single issue politics but that does get people involved who think that they can affect outcomes. It needs that engagement and also encourages people with a specific drive to get involved.
Whilst I like the idea of conscripted politicians I fear that this would not work. I certainly don't think just anyone could do my job and I suspect that is even more true of those trying to digest the subtleties of international relations or get to grips with the economy. Come to think of it the professional have not been too good at that either :-)
-
A democracy only works with an informed populace; and that we are not for the most part.
Aye, and there's the rub.
Whilst I like the idea of conscripted politicians I fear that this would not work. I certainly don't think just anyone could do my job and I suspect that is even more true of those trying to digest the subtleties of international relations or get to grips with the economy.
On first thought, you would seem to be right, but...
Come to think of it the professional have not been too good at that either :-)
Exactly my point [;D]
-
I hear that psychopaths put too many "ofs" in the questions they ask. Nuff said.