Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: jimbobghost on 15/12/2018 18:40:15
-
the free world generally consists of democracies, republics, or constitutional monarchies.
these forms of governance are proven to be the most successful, in allowing free thought and opportunity for the people.
although these concepts are an anethema to socialism, they demonstrate the failings of socialism; and without such a clear example of a failing concept, those people of the free world might be tempted to vote in socialism (due to the allure of "free" benefits to the lazy and unproductive)
as such, socialism benefits the free world as a foil against a failed concept duping them into losing their individuality.
-
You're comparing apples with oranges. Democracy and socialism are not mutually exclusive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
-
although these concepts are an anethema to socialism
No. They are not.
-
Democracy is not incompatible with socialism, republics or constitutional monarchies, either.
- The UK is a constitutional monarchy, but it took a struggle over many centuries to reach the current democratic situation where both lords and commoners could have a say, let alone both men and women.
- Most constitutional monarchies today have some level of democratic representation
- In the USA one of the major political parties is in favor of democracy, while the other is in favor of being a republic. Over a period of decades, they average out to a democratic republic. Ironically, much of the US public is enamored with royalty.
- In Australia, we have a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch is on the other side of the world, and rarely visits (or has much of a say at all, really).
- Once the common people get a say in government, the governing body, whether that be made of kings, lords, generals, senators, political parties, priests, criminals, lobbyists or corporate CEOs must take the needs of the common people into account - and that is very likely to end up with some form of socialism.
It is only absolute dictatorships (like North Korea) that feel free to ignore the will of the people
- I think that, at heart, Donald Trump is a dictator. Only he has been elected by the common people as head of a democracy. That sounds like an awkward place to be, for all concerned...
-
"- I think that, at heart, Donald Trump is a dictator. Only he has been elected by the common people as head of a democracy. That sounds like an awkward place to be, for all concerned..."
Evan, your post is well stated, and I don't wish to be picky on your conclusion, however:
although Trump might LIKE to be a dictator, as evidenced by both the opposing party as well as his own party, he is most certainly unable to rule (or even control) many aspects of government.
further, he was not elected by "the common people as head of a democracy"; but rather, as you know, by the elected representatives of the people, as head of a republic. (just ask Al Gore about majority rule) :)
our Founding Fathers understood the failings of an actual democracy; which has been described as "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner".
in the US, a few states comprise a large number of voters; and many of those states vote democrat. without a republic; a few states could turn the US into an even more socialist leaning country than it already is...against the will of the greater number of conservative states, who have a smaller total number of socialist leaning voters.
-
further, he was not elected by "the common people as head of a democracy"; but rather, as you know, by the elected representatives of the people, as head of a republic.
You have described the mechanism through which he was elected by the common people. Interestingly, most people voted against him; but he won anyway.
in the US, a few states comprise a large number of voters; and many of those states vote democrat. without a republic; a few states could turn the US into an even more socialist leaning country than it already is
What actually happened was that the electoral college system returned a Right wing president in spite of the fact that the majority of the people didn't want one. They wanted a "more socialist leaning country" than it is, but that was stolen.
So it hardly makes sense to say that the Founding fathers did a particularly good job of maintaining government in line with the will of the majority of the population.
Also, re
turn the US into an even more socialist leaning country than it already is
It isn't socialist leaning- unless you mean the state subsidy of employment in the military defense industry. There's certainly no tactical need to the US to spend that much on so called "defense".
-
Successful states that have adopted such dangerous socialist principles as free education for all, free health services, and the occasional public ownership of secondary industries such as railways and electricity, include Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Spain....in fact most European constitutional monarchies, nearly all of which rank very high in citizen happiness surveys. Republics which, according to Fox News and the Presidential Idiot are dangerously socialist include Switzerland, Iceland and Israel, and they seem to be doing fairly well too.
Also worth noting that the supposed American distatste for free health services only applies to Joe Public. The military and members of Congress have unlimited free healthcare, just as in proper communist states.
-
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner*
I think the biggest enemy of good government is tribalism:
- The idea that there is an "in-group", and everyone else doesn't matter
- This is a big problem in Africa, where there are many tribes, which they see as being quite distinct from one another; the tribe in power gets all the government jobs and gives all the government funding to their own family/tribe, and everyone else gets a pittance
- In this chauvinist environment, a democracy is a problem, because the numerically greater group gets to dominate any minority groups
- It is not government by the people for all the people
- In Europe, Hitler was clearly a tribal leader - his perceived "Aryan" people were the best - chuck out the rest
- I think that Singapore, with a diversity of cultures has done a good job of enforcing non-tribalism, perhaps assisted by the fact that no one ethnicity is numerically dominant
- I think that Donald Trump is appealing to tribal sentiments, with his "Make America great again" slogan, while increasing deportations.
Today's national/state/city political systems are inherently tribal, since they effectively place a low (or zero) weight on anyone who doesn't have a say in the elections, ie the rest of the world.
*Apparently, it wasn't from Benjamin Franklin: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Misattributed
Edit: Correction advised by Bored Chemist, below...
-
The human race sucks at getting on with one another. This is stirred up by underlings working for the psychopathic elite. The top 1 percent scum that always floats to the top. These morons only want to divide the masses so that they fight amongst one another and act as their own distraction. Being rich shouldn't be a crime. Being a scumbag should.
-
- I think that Singapore, with a diversity of cultures has done a good job of enforcing non-tribalism, perhaps assisted by the fact that no one ethnicity is numerically dominant
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Ethnic_groups
-
An interesting discussion about Russian involvement in the US elections suggests that the Russian players were seeking to accentuate existing tribalism in the USA - to divide and conquer.
Listen: https://samharris.org/podcasts/145-information-war/
One could argue that similar methods have polarized the UK over BREXIT, and have effectively paralysed the UK government for the past couple of years. Again, by accentuating tribal conflicts between the UK and the European continent, and weakening the (Western) European bloc.
These could be seen as strengthening the Eastern European bloc - although today one would hardly call this bloc "Socialist".
-
Socialism is embedded in our systems with usually centre left and centre right parties. And there are socialists leaned more left than centre. We have to tolerate them, because they get votes and money and have rights. Some policies from the left are good, like low cost medicine and Doctors. But universal education came from Wilberforce, and added human and animal rights. We need more of the likes of him. Not Marx.
The socialist economies don't work well, run into debt and the citizens are often unemployed and demotivated. Orphans are left in their buildings rocking back and forth in boredom in their urine... like in Romania, and missionaries then come with supplies to help, from the US and Australia... People manning bookshops in China were reluctant to actually sell any books. Socialists want to tax people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... 90%, and think they will still work. They think free education can be afforded without debt, and they love it because they are still in college. Foolish though they are, they vote and work in the parties and have the right, so not tolerating them is not possible.
-
These could be seen as strengthening the Eastern European bloc - although today one would hardly call this bloc "Socialist".
That bloc wasn't socialist under Gorbachev, never mind today.
But universal education came from Wilberforce,
Universal state funded education is a Socialist idea- no matter who proposed it.
The socialist economies don't work well, run into debt and the citizens are often unemployed
Famously wrong. there was officially no unemployment in the USSR (and real unemployment was pretty low too).
Anyone for whom they couldn't find a job was put in the army.
Orphans are left in their buildings rocking back and forth in boredom in their urine... like in Romania,
Romania was a dictatorship- not socialist.
Socialists want to tax people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... 90%, and think they will still work.
I suspect that only the Conservative party minions in the form of ATOS would class the late Steve Jobs as "fit for work".*
Once Gates was a billionaire, do you think he carried on working because he felt he needed more money?
That makes no sense, given that he donates most of it anyway.
It seems much more likely that he enjoyed being a success.
They think free education can be afforded without debt,
And it is, mainly for the reasons Wilberforce gave.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/27/thousands-died-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures
-
What I mean is universal state education was proposed before Marx was born. The empire wealthy ruling class of England had a social conscience, and saw things go wrong in France. Wilberforce was constructive and kind, even to animals. Pretty good that England abolished slavery without being forced. It was a very cruel industry. But Russia lurched into Marxism as a result of WW1 anarchy and loss. They had no time to think of elections to get back on their feet. It was like all Russians became slaves, except for the more equal ones.
We don't need marxism to have good policies that look like they are on the fringes of socialism.
Catholic and evangelical traditions are great for charity and caring for the community, even ruling, in democracy, and can work with socialism which has taken a long time to come good compared to Wilberforce's ideas. Although the church amidst human nature and I believe demons did ride it rough for centuries before we were enlightened, something that I doubt would ever happen without the spear head of the wisdom and benevolence and hope in Christ.
Bill Gates shows that wealthy people create the best products and services, not looking at military ones. Russia and Hungary were left behind in the 50s as the USA... went into the 80s...
-
We don't need marxism to have good policies that look like they are on the fringes of socialism.
Nobody said that we did.
Bill Gates shows that wealthy people create the best products and services, not looking at military ones.
Have you heard of Japan?
Fundamentally this thread is paradoxical.
"Why should the free world tolerate socialism?"
Because tolerance is what freedom means.Wilberforce was constructive and kind, even to animals.
That may well be why he didn't join the Conservative party.
Catholic and evangelical traditions are great for charity and caring for the community,
In a very real sense.
In a rather more real sense... no it isn't
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c9z6w6n469et/catholic-church-sexual-abuse-cases
-
The church is great for charity, although some people join it and behave very badly, abuse the system. But honest charities are strong in church life and Christian faith brings out the best policies I think.
Only non democratic socialism is intolerable. I also dislike jealousy expressed in socialism.
-
Christian faith brings out the best policies
Like slavery.
-
Some weak Christians may have endorsed slavery with avarice. Wilberforce corrected them. A petition he devised was popular and helped abolition. The apostle Paul began a soft revolution in his letter to Philemon by calling a runaway slave "brother".
Mars worshippers would never accomplish this. Christians at their best and the genuine work against other Christians and make some great policies and charities. Socialist need to be paid a fair bit to do the same works. If one tries to reason with a Mars worshipper, about slavery, they have no kinks in their armour in regards to avarice and ambition.
-
Some weak Christians may have endorsed slavery with avarice.
And some did it with biblical authority.
Leviticus 25:44-46
Socialist need to be paid a fair bit to do the same works.
You have got them muddled with capitalists.
Christians at their best and the genuine work against other Christians and make some great policies and charities.
Pardon?
If one tries to reason with a Mars worshipper,
I'm not sure that there are any worshippers of Mars (or of Ares, if you want the Greek god of war).
The closest I have seen is the US govt which spends more on the military than the next half a dozen or so countries combined.
-
Leviticus is the Old Testament, the New explains and develops the message into the correct form. Philemon over Leviticus. Jesus Christ, the greatest revelator. Corrector of the law.
I am thinking of charities to Romanian orphanages, who did more than the far left wing government. There are other examples, the genuine Christians some of which understand the Bible, do some well organized good deeds. Debating with other Christians who resist the light and love of God. But evil is in a weak position if it tries to use the Bible quotes for warring purposes. Thank God Mars is gone, replaced by Christ in some places.
Thus USA can now be confident that a nuclear attack would not reach their lands due to the black budget.
-
Jesus Christ, the greatest revelator. Corrector of the law.
Nope.
The Gospel truth is that he's the man who said that the old laws are right and unchangeable.
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Thus USA can now be confident that a nuclear attack would not reach their lands due to the black budget.
Nonsense.
It would be perfectly simple to put a nuke in a shipping container and deliver it to any sea port in the US. That means most of the population centres are wide open to attack.
You have swallowed the kool-aid that spending lots of money makes you safe. There's a point at which it makes you less safe because it stops you thinking that you need to cooperate with others (cooperating in a way that Christ would have wanted).
When you do that you start generating enemies.
What spending lots of money on defence really does is gives you a mechanism to channel taxpayers' money to your rich friends.
I am thinking of charities to Romanian orphanages, who did more than the far left wing government.
Do you realise that Romania didn't have a Left wing government, it had a dictatorship?
Do you not understand the difference?
-
Christ Jesus summed up the law in two commands, and the law under Paul the apostle was interpreted very differently compared to the Pharisees method. And today, people earn money, then, some only cattle, to sacrifice and tithe. Even King David followed the law by the Spirit, as in Ps 40 on sacrifice not needed, and open ear and the law in his heart... Jesus endorsed David a few times.
I think the CIA are doing their job, maybe with corruption in there though. Think of the power of the TR3B Astra. And secret weapons.
Romania was governed by communists sourced from the Soviet invasion. Communism was extreme socialism. Pure socialism.
-
Romania was governed by communists sourced from the Soviet invasion.
Bollocks
It was run , as a fiefdom by Chauchescu.Christ Jesus summed up the law in two commands,
OK, but if one of those didn't say "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." then it's clearly a lie (isn't it?)
Re " Christ Jesus summed up the law in two commands, and the law under Paul the apostle was interpreted very differently compared to the Pharisees method. And today, people earn money, then, some only cattle, to sacrifice and tithe. Even King David followed the law by the Spirit, as in Ps 40 on sacrifice not needed, and open ear and the law in his heart... Jesus endorsed David a few times."
Do you realise that what you posted makes no sense?
And I ask that, knowing that it's about 1 in the morning, and that I'm... not sober. (What's your excuse?")
-
Romania was governed by communists sourced from the Soviet invasion.
Bollocks
It was run , as a fiefdom by Chauchescu.Christ Jesus summed up the law in two commands,
OK, but if one of those didn't say "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." then it's clearly a lie (isn't it?)
Re " Christ Jesus summed up the law in two commands, and the law under Paul the apostle was interpreted very differently compared to the Pharisees method. And today, people earn money, then, some only cattle, to sacrifice and tithe. Even King David followed the law by the Spirit, as in Ps 40 on sacrifice not needed, and open ear and the law in his heart... Jesus endorsed David a few times."
Do you realise that what you posted makes no sense?
And I ask that, knowing that it's about 1 in the morning, and that I'm... not sober. (What's your excuse?")
The law is just, somewhat without showing mercy and grace. Jesus Christ came bringing mercy, grace and truth. When we know what is just, we can appreciate mercy and grace. So the law is obsolete yet has a purpose being fulfilled. Even in King David's times, being led by the Spirit of God who authored the Torah and Prophets works, was above the letter of the law. Jesus mentioned this when the Pharisees asked why his disciples worked on the sabbath, breaking the letter of the law.
The law's purpose is fulfilled as we see mercy and grace supercede it. Anger is equivalent to murder, lust to adultery. If one has any of this, one needs repent and receive grace. One needs come to be kind at heart. So the law leads us to need grace and that is the law's purpose being fulfilled.
With the wisdom of the apostles the law is obsolete and being built over with new structure. The Torah is only a foundation.
I am a night owl.
-
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rep%C3%BAblica_Socialista_de_Rumania
Socialist Romania.
-
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rep%C3%BAblica_Socialista_de_Rumania
Socialist Romania.
East Germany called itself a "democratic republic".
It lied.
So did Romania.
-
East Germany called itself a "democratic republic".
It lied.
So did Romania.
Romania then, was state run, not private or religious charity run. If it was not socialist, it means that too few in that system were interested in the state enterprise, and equality. I used to talk to the staff at a charity to Romanian orphans in 1993. I recall that they sat in their own urine, heads shaved, staring at the wall, rocking back and forwards in boredom...
Socialism doesn't produce the means to maintain it's social equality and welfare. Especially if atheism is enforced. Not enough money or interest. Social democracy is okay.
-
I think Australia's Labour party under Hawke and Keating had a lot to offer. Medicare, Social Security, some low cost education, Court of Arbitration, workers rights and union benefits. Although the economy went into debt with money going to public services and works via loans. Still it was managed.
I recall Hawke held summits and helped stop nuclear proliferation.
-
I used to talk to the staff at a charity to Romanian orphans in 1993. I recall that they sat in their own urine, heads shaved, staring at the wall, rocking back and forwards in boredom...
And that's pretty much all the proof you need that it was not socialist.
"from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".
Are those kids needs being supplied?
Clearly not.
So why are you using an example of a dictatorship which obviously isn't communist or socialist in a discussion about socialism?I think Australia's Labour party under Hawke and Keating had a lot to offer. Medicare, Social Security, some low cost education, Court of Arbitration, workers rights and union benefits. Although the economy went into debt with money going to public services and works via loans.
So, you like socialism, you just don't like socialism.
Would it be better if you worked out what you were talking about?
-
And that's pretty much all the proof you need that it was not socialist.
"from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".
Are those kids needs being supplied?
Clearly not.
What this means is that the system designed to be state run, and follow Marx's ideas, couldn't go ahead. It worked best in Hungary.
-
So, you like socialism, you just don't like socialism.
I do not like non democratic socialism. Or forced socialism. As I typed above, it doesn't work, to keep up the charity, kindness and altruism... it stops being social.
-
I do not like non democratic socialism
What non-democratic governmental systems do you like?
Or is your opinion nothing to do with socialism?