ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:38 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:19 am
Sausage Dog has not been banned because of his views but because of the lack of any moderation here
Such a non interventionist approach is good for the forum as it allows for a greater diversity of opinion
"Such a non-interventionist approach" is good because it respects the important right of freedom of speech/expression. A state that does not respect the right its citizens SHOULD have to freedom of speech/expression strips them of liberty and renders them nothing more than slaves.

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

surreptitious57
Posts: 3082
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:00 am

Not to mention it would make for a very boring and superfluous forum if everyone agreed with everyone else all the time
Also no one has a monopoly on wisdom so providing one is open minded the potential to learn from others is always there

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:14 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:59 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:23 pm
Age wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:08 pm


How are you defining 'socialist' here?
A socialist an individual who believes that the state should own the means of production, and that all private ownership of property should be abolished. Socialists also advocate equity (equality of OUTCOME as an end that must be pursued from equality of opportunity)
Thank you, this helps in explaining where the distorted thinking is coming from.

1. If an individual believes some thing, then they are not fully open to learning what is actually true and right.

2. What is wrong with 'equality of OUTCOME' and why is the word 'outcome' in capitals?
ON "equality of OUTCOME" versus "equality of OPPORTUNITY",

The concern by the more conservative interpretation is that a societal management system (government) needs to be non-intrusive to one's free competing free wills. So the only function they respect of a government is one that only assures non-interference of HOW one can potentially get what they want but that one has the initial options apparently available.

From one perspective, this may be like asserting that we have the 'freedom to compete to acquire' something. As such, they believe we should have the right to 'dream' of getting a Rolls Royce, for instance. But it is frowned upon to have a government that interferes to bump up some people's odds by making laws that permit SPECIAL allowances based upon some quality, like 'poverty' for instance.

The problem, as seen by those supporting a government that intervenes in improving the odds of some specific class is that while it we may freely witness the potential reward, this is illusive and often intentionally deceptive. I can 'freely' see that IF I COULD manage to save up enough money, I am not denied a right to purchase the Rolls Royce I see at the car dealership. This 'freedom' to SEE the reward doesn't assure that the odds are on par with each actual individual because of the concept of INHERITANCE. Some have an advantage by merely inheriting something both genetic and environmental that by contrast others don't. This makes some be defaulted to having to expend way more input energy in order to get the same thing. A $100, 000 car, for instance, may realistically be $200,000 in the energy needed for someone from a coincidentally disadvantaged inherent position/disposition. This is where the left argues that the reality of the appearance of 'fairness' is non-existent. Because the favorable circumstances by those inheriting to believe in a system that does not impose regulation, AND that they believe nature should compete in a Darwinian style, the question is reasonably raised: "Isn't it 'Darwinian' to also utilize DECEPTION against those born without actual fair opportunity, to make them think the 'lottery' is FAIR by faith in the hands off approach that just so happens to favor the ones demanding this faith OF those with less fortune than them.

To me, the logic of the Conservative is to 'conserve' their default fortunes by convincing the masses that somehow they 'earned' it intrinsically by God's/Nature's favor. The pretty actress who may have 'succeeded' in fame and wealth may sincerely be due to her accidental genetic inheritance. But if you ARE this actress knowing that your success is dependent only upon your accidental fortune, is it wise to promote this in reflection honestly to your fan base? If you feel guilty about your luck, one way to help justify your success in your mind is to attempt to seek some reason you succeeded based solely upon your 'will'. That the fact one who is inherently fortunate has a greater odds of experiencing success at even the most trivial demands of their will, the may falsely interpret that they EARNED their fortune BY some imposition of 'will power' and some default favor of some 'god' who reads their heart as somehow naturally more pure.

Thus, one conservative tactic is to promote ridiculous beliefs in weird things to greater extremes because they have no actual logically 'fair' justification for why they are successful while others are not. Then they impose that one's actual successes or failures are purely OWNED by the individuals 'will', versus their 'effort'.

I understand the self-preserving psychology that goes into this and know that most of us would tend to favor the political side also based upon whether we inherited better genes or better environments. But if the concept of 'government' IS just a collective system of management, if it is sincerely 'democratic' (of the people's will by the majorities), then the system is necessarily ANTI-natural: it is artificially a means to DEFEAT Nature's default of unfairness due to inherent accidents. We are intellectual and can now reflect upon nature and use that intelligence to supersede nature's disrespect of EACH of its parts. Thus government is bound to be more RATIONALLY democratic (versus 'republic') while Nature still favors those who DO inherit better odds of success will also demand a counter 'government' that is actually intent on self-destruction. Why would/should you want to be defeated for your accidental fortune when this is itself contradicting your own 'will' EQUAL to everyone else by nature?

Thus we have a frustrating contradiction by nature that could care less about our will but CAN be improved if we can somehow assure that we are in the power to hold the reigns of any artificial concept, like 'government' itself.

The reality of 'government' does not go away even if we could remove it because it only TRANSFERS WHO the actual 'government' are. The conservatives will favor a government FOR the people by the representatives of PRIVATE fortune holders, the wealthier. The majority, who represent the 'demos' are always relatively impoverished and the fear of the mob, by the opposing conservatives, fear those demanding a government BY THE PEOPLE in which it means a government that would effectively attempt to reverse the nature of inherited fortunes by intentionally and forcefully taking it away from them artificially. This is what is interpreted by the conservatives as being unfair. Nature without government favors themselves because they hold the actual reigns of power THROUGH their inherited power and thus ARE the 'governing' factor of the people. Selling the dream, by the conservatives, as though all CAN achieve this by their own will and sacrifice, is where they argue against freedom of outcome. They don't need a system that ASSURES equal outcome successes because it necessarily comes by removing what they already have by default.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:37 am

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:38 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:19 am
Sausage Dog has not been banned because of his views but because of the lack of any moderation here
Such a non interventionist approach is good for the forum as it allows for a greater diversity of opinion
"Such a non-interventionist approach" is good because it respects the important right of freedom of speech/expression. A state that does not respect the right its citizens SHOULD have to freedom of speech/expression strips them of liberty and renders them nothing more than slaves.

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
Unfortunately, since those who most WANT restriction of freedoms of speech who are being exposed as being extremely exclusive of their 'own', will promote they support 'freedom of speech' UNTIL they have the full control of such governments privately. You certainly don't want a government that demands the private power of owners to ALSO permit 'freedom of speech'. You'd want the POWER of your advantage to 'freely' force those who are disadvantaged and in your employ, to OBEY or risk being fired or denied a 'right' to exist upon your OWN properties without paying your exclusively unlimited demands where you have this advantage.

I support freedom of speech more honestly. But it necessarily requires reducing the power of exclusive claims of 'ownership' of the Earth by those declaring their right to 'free speech' only in order to remove the powers of those governments asserting this to exist to even make free speech valuable. What good is it to 'freely' speak to private owners in absolute positions of power where governments are reduced sufficiently to prevent assurances that others without ownership are 'free' to speak without undemocratic representation?

The WAY you speak makes me think that you are NOT interested in actual freedom of speech but against it with respect to the masses. By 'freely speaking' against the very system that could assure this is not denied, you defeat the actual power of the masses to the very 'free speech' you claim to be for.

Age
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Age » Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:55 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:14 am
Age wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:59 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:23 pm


A socialist an individual who believes that the state should own the means of production, and that all private ownership of property should be abolished. Socialists also advocate equity (equality of OUTCOME as an end that must be pursued from equality of opportunity)
Thank you, this helps in explaining where the distorted thinking is coming from.

1. If an individual believes some thing, then they are not fully open to learning what is actually true and right.

2. What is wrong with 'equality of OUTCOME' and why is the word 'outcome' in capitals?
ON "equality of OUTCOME" versus "equality of OPPORTUNITY",

The concern by the more conservative interpretation is that a societal management system (government) needs to be non-intrusive to one's free competing free wills. So the only function they respect of a government is one that only assures non-interference of HOW one can potentially get what they want but that one has the initial options apparently available.

From one perspective, this may be like asserting that we have the 'freedom to compete to acquire' something. As such, they believe we should have the right to 'dream' of getting a Rolls Royce, for instance. But it is frowned upon to have a government that interferes to bump up some people's odds by making laws that permit SPECIAL allowances based upon some quality, like 'poverty' for instance.

The problem, as seen by those supporting a government that intervenes in improving the odds of some specific class is that while it we may freely witness the potential reward, this is illusive and often intentionally deceptive. I can 'freely' see that IF I COULD manage to save up enough money, I am not denied a right to purchase the Rolls Royce I see at the car dealership. This 'freedom' to SEE the reward doesn't assure that the odds are on par with each actual individual because of the concept of INHERITANCE. Some have an advantage by merely inheriting something both genetic and environmental that by contrast others don't. This makes some be defaulted to having to expend way more input energy in order to get the same thing. A $100, 000 car, for instance, may realistically be $200,000 in the energy needed for someone from a coincidentally disadvantaged inherent position/disposition. This is where the left argues that the reality of the appearance of 'fairness' is non-existent. Because the favorable circumstances by those inheriting to believe in a system that does not impose regulation, AND that they believe nature should compete in a Darwinian style, the question is reasonably raised: "Isn't it 'Darwinian' to also utilize DECEPTION against those born without actual fair opportunity, to make them think the 'lottery' is FAIR by faith in the hands off approach that just so happens to favor the ones demanding this faith OF those with less fortune than them.

To me, the logic of the Conservative is to 'conserve' their default fortunes by convincing the masses that somehow they 'earned' it intrinsically by God's/Nature's favor. The pretty actress who may have 'succeeded' in fame and wealth may sincerely be due to her accidental genetic inheritance. But if you ARE this actress knowing that your success is dependent only upon your accidental fortune, is it wise to promote this in reflection honestly to your fan base? If you feel guilty about your luck, one way to help justify your success in your mind is to attempt to seek some reason you succeeded based solely upon your 'will'. That the fact one who is inherently fortunate has a greater odds of experiencing success at even the most trivial demands of their will, the may falsely interpret that they EARNED their fortune BY some imposition of 'will power' and some default favor of some 'god' who reads their heart as somehow naturally more pure.

Thus, one conservative tactic is to promote ridiculous beliefs in weird things to greater extremes because they have no actual logically 'fair' justification for why they are successful while others are not. Then they impose that one's actual successes or failures are purely OWNED by the individuals 'will', versus their 'effort'.

I understand the self-preserving psychology that goes into this and know that most of us would tend to favor the political side also based upon whether we inherited better genes or better environments. But if the concept of 'government' IS just a collective system of management, if it is sincerely 'democratic' (of the people's will by the majorities), then the system is necessarily ANTI-natural: it is artificially a means to DEFEAT Nature's default of unfairness due to inherent accidents. We are intellectual and can now reflect upon nature and use that intelligence to supersede nature's disrespect of EACH of its parts. Thus government is bound to be more RATIONALLY democratic (versus 'republic') while Nature still favors those who DO inherit better odds of success will also demand a counter 'government' that is actually intent on self-destruction. Why would/should you want to be defeated for your accidental fortune when this is itself contradicting your own 'will' EQUAL to everyone else by nature?

Thus we have a frustrating contradiction by nature that could care less about our will but CAN be improved if we can somehow assure that we are in the power to hold the reigns of any artificial concept, like 'government' itself.

The reality of 'government' does not go away even if we could remove it because it only TRANSFERS WHO the actual 'government' are. The conservatives will favor a government FOR the people by the representatives of PRIVATE fortune holders, the wealthier. The majority, who represent the 'demos' are always relatively impoverished and the fear of the mob, by the opposing conservatives, fear those demanding a government BY THE PEOPLE in which it means a government that would effectively attempt to reverse the nature of inherited fortunes by intentionally and forcefully taking it away from them artificially. This is what is interpreted by the conservatives as being unfair. Nature without government favors themselves because they hold the actual reigns of power THROUGH their inherited power and thus ARE the 'governing' factor of the people. Selling the dream, by the conservatives, as though all CAN achieve this by their own will and sacrifice, is where they argue against freedom of outcome. They don't need a system that ASSURES equal outcome successes because it necessarily comes by removing what they already have by default.
I did not read all of this as I am not sure why you responded. I was asking a specific person to clarify what they, them self, wrote. I was also asking why they write it the way they did, and only they have and know that answer.

I might read the rest later.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:50 am

Age wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:55 pm

I did not read all of this as I am not sure why you responded. I was asking a specific person to clarify what they, them self, wrote. I was also asking why they write it the way they did, and only they have and know that answer.

I might read the rest later.
That's cool. I meant it for anyone. I was thinking of the discussion as though we were all present together in the same room.

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Mon Jul 15, 2019 2:20 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 1:23 am



The opposing concepts about ownership is "Communism" versus "Capitalism". Regardless of the various definition sources of "socialism", this concept describes any ideal of a party that believes the government's function is to provide laws that aim to direct society to favor EACH member of society in some class. Thus, Communist government favors the whole the class. For a "National Socialist" type, as those who believe in formulating a very particular society for a subset of the whole, "the Nationalist" [For WWII Germany's Nazis, the Class is ONLY the 'Native or Aboriginal' of German blood.]

In today's society, "socialism" is about setting up essential services for all when in government. This entails ownership of essential things like public roads and waterways, education systems, utility companies and communication infrastructure BY THE PEOPLE. The essentials if or when 'owned' by select subsets of people,in contrast, where profit (or power through it) is their private motive first and foremost, makes those who 'own' them have an absurd power to exploit others, especially where these become monopolized. The compassion of the strict capitalist is SELFISH and thus not something relevant to the interest of a management system for all (a 'government'). In other words, the means of the strict capitalist is to OPTIMIZE their OWN, regardless of its effects upon those that are NOT theirs.

And please don't mistaken me for some type you have in mind of the socialist. I am arguing here without bias for nor against, even where I may share certain socialist leaning preferences. I think politics is somewhat fucked because it cannot ideally work in any system where values are involved in making laws. There is always bias. BUT when I hear from those like yourself act with your own apparent disgust of the "socialist", I am only able to interpret you as having some STRONG SELFISH interest to make government itself to be 'privately' of your own. That's dictatorial. Note that Communism fails for the nature of this to creep in. Marx only proposed it because he couldn't determine how you could get to the ideal 'communist' society. It is ironic that both (or all?) extremes share certain common behaviors when in practice. Note that both the National Socialist and the Communists were derived from idealizing a society with NO GOVERNMENT! Their means of getting to this anarchy and how they imagine people to become may differ, but their intents were to mean well (at least for those they thought were worthy of love, of course.)




Dear Scott




As one of my favourite British Conservative Prime Ministers, John Major, would suggest, I will probably need to go "Back to Basics" on this matter in order to untangle some of the muddled thinking I note in your posts. I think that's a good idea, actually, so I'm going to explain two very basic, though very important concepts that bear on the problem of socialism and why it is such a poisonous and inhuman political ideology. There are more than two basic concepts I should explain, but just dealing with two of the basics will make this post rather lengthy, and I've been told that most forum members find long-winded posts very taxing and tedious.





OK, so, there are two basics concepts I'm going to exposit in the context of socialism: (1) THE FACTUAL INEQUALITY OF HUMAN NATURE and (2) "THE TREMENDOUS IMPORTANCE OF THE 'RULE OF LAW' ." I start by looking at the Rule of law...




(1) THE "RULE OF LAW"




OK, so, let's try to clearly define what is essentially meant by the term "Rule of Law". The "Rule of Law" is best defined as the authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour. It is a political principal whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered EQUALLY subject to publicly-disclosed legal codes and processes.




It is important to explicate what is meant by a "law" in the context of the political principle: the "Rule of Law." My understanding of the kind laws being referenced here is probably best illustrated by looking at the rules that together constitute what is called "Common Law" in the West. "Common Law" was originally developed in England and dates back to the early medieval period, so I will use English Common Law as an example. The Common Law in England is that unwritten part of English law that stems from the customs and usages of the English people and from judicial precedence. By "customs", I mean the rules for social behaviour which develop naturally in a community without being enforced by any external authority. I would emphasise as well that when I say Common Law is derived from custom and "judicial precedent", the later means that it is not in any way imposed by legislators or any other government officials. English Common Law as I have indicated evolves over time and represent a compilation (unwritten) of those rules , founded on common sense, that the people and the judiciary have together set for themselves as standards for their own conduct in society. The Common Law is based on broad principles, such as the right to life, the right to own private property, non-maleficence and such like. Thus, the Common Law prohibits: murder; rape; assault and battery; trespass on private property; defamation; property theft; outraging public decency; deprivation of liberty, etc.



For the purposes of this debate, the most important aspect of the "Rule of Law" is notion of EQUALITY before the "Rule of Law." John Locke, the English philosopher famously argued that individuals in a society can only be free when they are subjected to the Rule of the Laws (the Laws he had in mind were the collective set of rules the comprise Common Law) of their society AND those laws apply EQUALLY to EVERYONE with literally no exceptions. No one can be above the law. The same law must apply equally to the most powerful and wealthy persons in a society as it does to its most humble citizen, this is a necessary condition for securing the liberty of all individuals in the state.



(2) THE FACTUAL INEQUALITY OF HUMAN NATURE



Now let's look at human nature. Human beings are NOT equal. I mean, just consider for a moment the infinite varieties of human nature that exist all around you. Consider the wide range of differences in individual capacities (biophysical and psychological) and in potentialities. This tremendous diversity is one of the most distinctive facts about the human species. The evolution of homo sapiens has probably made them the most variable of all creature on Earth. (And) I think the claim that biology, with variability as its cornerstone, has conferred on EVERY human being a totally unique set of attributes which, in turn, gives him/her a dignity, that is, a moral worth/value, that s/he could not possess otherwise, is correct. Human beings are all innately endowed with equal dignity precisely BECAUSE each individual person possess an utterly unique ( i.e; UNEQUAL) set of characteristics both physical and mental.




Every newborn baby is an unknown quantity with respect to its potentialities because there are so many thousands of genes and inter-related gene patterns which contribute to his make-up. As a consequence of the continuous, dynamic interaction of nature (internal genotype) and nurture (external environmental factors) the newborn baby may become one of the greatest men or women ever to have lived. In every case, each newborn baby has the making of an utterly unique individual quite unlike any other.



So, if these human differences are merely inconsequential, unimportant things, then freedom and the idea of individual human dignity (worth/moral value) is likewise merely an inconsequential, unimportant thing, isn't it ? Those proponents of the widely-held uniformity theory of human nature - which in a superficial sense seems to accord with ("One Vote, One Value") democracy - would, it follows, in time undermine the very basic ideals of freedom and individual worth, and ultimately render life as we know it meaningless - bereft of all value and hope.



(3) THE FACTUAL INEQUALITY OF HUMAN NATURE and EQUALITY BEFORE THE "RULE OF LAW"




Let me begin this concluding section of my post by quoting the Nobel Laureate (economic, 1974) A.F.Hayek....



"The great aim of the struggle for liberty has been equality before the law."



I agree with Hayek, 100%. The equality of ALL citizens before the law (Hayek meant the rules of Common Law) is the only kind of equality which we can possible attain without DESTROYING LIBERTY. At the heart of the principle of equality before the law is the demand that PEOPLE SHOULD ALL BE TREATED ALIKE in spite of the fact that they are all so different ( i.e; factually unequal).



Because people are very different, it follows that if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual positions, and the only way to place them in an equal position WOULD BE TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY.



Given the obvious differences between people, if we want to make unequal people equal, we need to rely on isolated case decisions to determine who get what. This means that establishing social conditions - like material (substantive) equality - will necessarily need the deliberate discrimination of redistributing authorities. Such a kind of planning necessarily involves deliberate discrimination between the particular needs of different people, and allowing one man to do what another is prohibited from doing. In other words, Equality before the Law and material equality are not only different, but they are actually in conflict with each other. We can have one or the other , but WE CANNOT HAVE BOTH at the same time.




In a classical socialistic order the government deliberately pursues policies aimed at material/substantive equality and this inevitably leads to the destruction of the Rule of Law. In a society where the Rule of Law has been destroyed, so too, course, will the principle of EQUALITY before the Rule of Law be non-existent. In such a society there can be no liberty - men are no longer free. Let me explain as follows...



In the 20th century, and indeed the 21st (I am thinking of Venezuela here) the classical socialistic regimes followed a definite and homogenous goal, and that goal was expressed through Karl Marx's idea of "Communism." For example, in the program of the IX party conference of the Socialistic Unity Party (SED) of the German Democratic Republic (DDR) from 1976, we read that...



"Communism - that is the classless order of society in which all members of the society are footed socially equal...and which is governed by the principle: "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."



The Marxian idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was translated into public policy by a variety of political instruments including: selective subsidising of good and services; rationing of goods, and administratively fixed uniform wages for nearly all occupations and such like. Thus, classical socialistic systems typically pursued the ideal of material equality rather than the ideal of Equality before the Law. Most socialistic regimes tried to achieve this by central planning, a style of administration, which has, according to socialistic ideology, an economic as well as a moral superiority against the "anarchy of the free market." To exercise "superior" central planning according to the will of the working class, dictatorship was officially accepted (e.g. Stalin, Tito) and wanted. But this dictatorship was not exercised by the working class directly; rather, it was "represented by the party, which was seen as the only authorized "interpreter" of official ideology, namely, Socialistic Scientism". This central power was exercised in economic relations through the various state-owned companies and agricultural cooperatives. The extent of this power can be imagined if we take a look at the share of the public sector as a percentage of GDP in European Socialistic countries shortly before the start of the transition to free market economies in 1989: in the year 1988 the public sector produced 99.3% of GDP in Czechoslovakia, 96.4 % in East Germany and 95.5% in Romania.



In addition, the administration in socialistic systems, exercised a lot of influence in the civic society via "mass organisations" which were also led by ruling socialistic parties. Neither in civic nor in economic life were there independent actors which could be seen as Equals before the Law. Because the central planners in these political systems were subject only to the "interests of the working class", and not to any constitutional (common) law, or the the aims of independent individuals, they exercised their power NOT according to the Rule of Law, but according to the rules of REASON - which meant that they necessarily had to treat different persons unequally !



Finally, it is not remotely possible to set out all of the argument against socialistic government on a forum like this, I mean, one would have to publish a very large text book just to scratch the surface of the legion different dimensions of the problem with socialistic ideology: political, economic, social. philosophical, etc. So let me conclude this post with just one final point, which is this...



It seems very clear to me that free market capital economies work far more in concert with human nature than socialistic economies, which attempt to work largely in opposition to it. Take the tremendous abundance of the United States for instance. America's great abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of FREE men who were at liberty to pursue their own personal interests. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialisation ( nor terrorise, imprison, torture, or murder them for that matter !). They gave people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance - and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way. But I think the great 18th century economist Adam Smith summed it up best when he wrote...



"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard for their own interest."



A man will always work much harder to take care of himself and his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state/government, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren't working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.






Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
Last edited by Dachshund on Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4755
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Dachshund

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:17 pm

:thumbsup:

The fundamental, Lockean, principle: a man owns himself...he owns his life, his liberty, and his property (his substance).

A man only forfeits, in part or in whole, his life, liberty, or property when he knowingly, willfully, moves to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property. There are simply no exceptions or loopholes or exemptions. 

Neither the (state) communist or (state) caplitalist can lay claim to him. And neither should be surprised when he defies them, sez 'no' to them, and -- in the end -- shoots both in the backside with rock salt.

Rule of law is a fine thing as you describe it, Dachshund, but it's a notion not easily understood and far too easily subverted.

Again: loopin' back to the fundamental principle above, so clean & direct & unambiguous, easily understood & hellishly difficult to subvert, the unmistakable guide for civilization & civilized behavior, the foundation for any true compact between men, respecting only self-ownership & the defense of self-ownership.

Through this principle men can arrange themselves, align themselves, cooperate & compete, as they like & can (including in some benighted communistic anthill or mechanized capitalistic assembly line); they cannot, however, justly demand those who see things otherwise follow suit or comply. Such nonsense ought be met with rock salt in the rear (or buck shot in the face).

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Dachshund

Post by Dachshund » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:03 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:17 pm
:thumbsup:

The fundamental, Lockean, principle: a man owns himself...he owns his life, his liberty, and his property (his substance).

A man only forfeits, in part or in whole, his life, liberty, or property when he knowingly, willfully, moves to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property. There are simply no exceptions or loopholes or exemptions. 

Neither the (state) communist or (state) caplitalist can lay claim to him. And neither should be surprised when he defies them, sez 'no' to them, and -- in the end -- shoots both in the backside with rock salt.

Rule of law is a fine thing as you describe it, Dachshund, but it's a notion not easily understood and far too easily subverted.

Again: loopin' back to the fundamental principle above, so clean & direct & unambiguous, easily understood & hellishly difficult to subvert, the unmistakable guide for civilization & civilized behavior, the foundation for any true compact between men, respecting only self-ownership & the defense of self-ownership.

Through this principle men can arrange themselves, align themselves, cooperate & compete, as they like & can (including in some benighted communistic anthill or mechanized capitalistic assembly line); they cannot, however, justly demand those who see things otherwise follow suit or comply. Such nonsense ought be met with rock salt in the rear (or buck shot in the face).

Well said, Henry !


I 'll get back to you in more detail soon (tomorrow). It's late at night here and It time for me to "hit the Hat" about now.


Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4755
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Well said, Henry !"

Post by henry quirk » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:36 pm

Thank you, sir!

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8043
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Dachshund

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:51 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:03 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:17 pm
:thumbsup:

The fundamental, Lockean, principle: a man owns himself...he owns his life, his liberty, and his property (his substance).

A man only forfeits, in part or in whole, his life, liberty, or property when he knowingly, willfully, moves to deprive another of his life, liberty, or property. There are simply no exceptions or loopholes or exemptions. 

Neither the (state) communist or (state) caplitalist can lay claim to him. And neither should be surprised when he defies them, sez 'no' to them, and -- in the end -- shoots both in the backside with rock salt.

Rule of law is a fine thing as you describe it, Dachshund, but it's a notion not easily understood and far too easily subverted.

Again: loopin' back to the fundamental principle above, so clean & direct & unambiguous, easily understood & hellishly difficult to subvert, the unmistakable guide for civilization & civilized behavior, the foundation for any true compact between men, respecting only self-ownership & the defense of self-ownership.

Through this principle men can arrange themselves, align themselves, cooperate & compete, as they like & can (including in some benighted communistic anthill or mechanized capitalistic assembly line); they cannot, however, justly demand those who see things otherwise follow suit or comply. Such nonsense ought be met with rock salt in the rear (or buck shot in the face).

Well said, Henry !


I 'll get back to you in more detail soon (tomorrow). It's late at night here and It time for me to "hit the Hat" about now.


Regards

Dachshund
When you have finished massaging each other's egos, you do realise that your little 'Utopias' are only another name for totalitarian dictatorships? Leave everyone to their own devices and someone else will take those 'devices' from them, someone bigger, stronger, with better 'people skills', more manipulative, more cunning, more ruthless, more articulate, more devious, more sociopathic, more ambitious, less empathetic..................

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1409
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Scott Mayers » Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:14 am

Dachshund, I'm not with the average person here on depth. I approve of it and prefer to see more rather than less depth. So thanks first for the response.

I must first point out that I'm Canadian but have also American experience early on in life. I don't approve of a lot of the way of the philosophy of especially the British/European adherence to terms that even my government hangs on to, like "the rule of law", as though this is some clever unique discovery that needs an expression. The "Rule of Law" to me sounds like some trademarked idea but merely reduces to mean any literal laws formalized by a government. I understand the distinction with respect to "common law" and find this idea (common law) more disturbing if where used less precisely because they are just means to assert flexibility in judges (and juries) to optionally enable us to redress particular CASES given unusual differences of the conditions/circumstances that differ between people and times.

All governments that make strict laws for everyone universally are "laws" which 'rule' us regardless of what kind of government is making them. The 'case law' (common laws) types of laws should coincide with the stricter ones but act as circumstantial where such do represent differences that are not universal. So we need both. Constitutional laws are types of "Rule of Law" laws given they are more universal and bound to create problems if they are not explicitly defined to 'rule'.

All governments are 'social' management systems and to me makes them necessarily 'socialistic' to some extent. So when I hear someone attacking them, I'm interpreting them to mean they prefer an anarchy with respect to EACH person's power to be TRANSFERRED to select individuals that RULE WITHOUT CONCERN for anyone but the RULER's dictates. So whatever system of government that one believes only tells me whether they are attempting to secure the POWER they have BASED UPON their circumstances. The 'conservative' is attempting to conserve the power they have FROM the perspective of HAVING fortune by default. The 'progressives' are those who are relatively LACKING the power by default and why they want laws that actually address novel changes that those strict present laws BIAS them by default.

I've only known those who want conservation of power with an absolute disdain for 'socialist' laws to be the arrogant people better off BY DEFAULT. And this does NOT mean they are fortunate for being more worthy or 'supreme' by default, but by mere LUCK where inheritances don't respect the actual intellect or moral integrity of those individuals who inherit. As long as inheritance is conserved without limits, the average representation among those who do versus those who don't are equally culpable of being cruel as they are to be kind compared to the rest of the population that lacks such inheritances. As such, NO SYSTEM's ideology is favorable if fixed constitutionally because the worst of any governing body will tend towards abuse regardless of how well it is initiated. And oddly, this was discovered and thought out well by Marx, contrary to his idea of Communism. That is, if he were to reflect upon his own philosophy regarding the cycles of all political systems to go through cycles of abuse that require drastic revolt to overthrow, he'd have to reflexively realize that this is still true of his suggested idea of "Communism" by his formulation of it.

I found it odd that he thought it wise to select some particular leader (a dictator) to act as a go between to the ideal anarchy he thought could be reached. It doesn't logically follow given the idea of 'communism' is against the strict individual to rule. But even his ideal END was equally in sync with the opposite belief of having an ideal system ruled only by a system without management (anarchy).

"Government" is just a collective management system AND is necessarily social regardless of how those thinking this idea is bad. The 'welfare' it represents goes to the already well off LUCKY people when it is 'conservative' whereas the more 'socialist' leaning prefers a system that grants a more universal 'welfare' democratically. As such, while I don't think any ideal works, only the ones that serve the flexibility that deals with ALL people regardless of inheritance, is appropriately functional for a government. The "socialist" concept merely means that the 'society' as a whole should be represented by any management system that ALL are expected a 'government' to serve. To me, an 'anti-socialist' preference for a system is not even a government that can be sold to the whole (or best democratically representatives of the population) because they are based on INHERITANCE and necessarily defines the few UNLESS 'inheritance' of the Earth is itself a right of any arbitrary person born on it to claim as one's OWN.

Economic inheritance is just LUCK, pure and simple. Of course if you are one who has this, you will prefer less interference in your rule. Where no or little interference exists by such a system, this merely TRANSFERS the power to these wealthier people regardless of any genetic qualities they EQUALLY hold of inferior as well as superior to the whole. [In fact, given the demos is always a larger set of the variation, the fewer that exist in the pool of the wealthier suggest more of a degradation in actual superior qualities given the inferior is always more prevalent.

As such, the anti-social appeal you may think has better meaning for a 'government' via the Darwinian approach of Adam Smith's hands-off ideal is just as vulnerable to lead to more INFERIOR rulers. If you know evolution appropriately, you'd know that evolution doesn't favor supreme fitness, only 'fitness' (AS IN "to match") the environment, even if this means evolving to favor bacteria.

I actually DO agree to a mixed system that requires altering at times to more socialist or more self-serving interests at different times and places. Politics is NOT able to be something that seeks some 'truer' form as though it were some fixed scientific fact of nature. This is because the nature of politics is social and yet nature doesn't give two shits about our personal social appeal.

From a more personal perspective, neither extremes would favor me. The reality of politics is that contrary to what you may think, the 'social left' is actually conservative when you consider they treat the GROUP as the minority. The right-wing politics sells itself as being concerned about the individual but in practice also favor the GROUP too. The 'conservative' just favors some more select extreme group which threatens our freedoms more unless you ARE of their particular group. As an individualist, I then still have to select the least destructive form that at least favors MORE people rather than less.

If you deny any ideal you have in mind against what you consider 'socialist', then you are no different than what you claim to fear of the 'dictator of the workers': you just favor a dictatorship of capitalistic opportunists....of which you better hope to be of the fortunate enough to compete with by default. I've never benefited by either. Rather, I've been demonized by the left for presuming I MUST be benefiting by default of having skin the more closely associated with the PRESENT wealthier classes, and by the right for presuming that IF I'm NOT successful, I must have EARNED my fate for being unfavorable in the eye of some God or nature itself. I have less hope personally of a system of the right that thinks it is alright to EXPLOIT those born without 'ownership' than those of the left who, while still not favoring me for making laws that inappropriately presume the class "poverty" relates to "race", I can COMPETE to argue with those of the left who believe in their sincerity of compassion but misplace it because their form comprises of multiple conservative GROUPS of which negotiating is more accessible.

I can't negotiate with some individual capitalist who believes intrinsically in EXPLOITING others for their own gain especially when another it most vulnerable. Yes, we are all selfish with regards to our roots in morality; but given we evolved as humans most uniquely due to the intellect, if we go to a strict anti-socialist ideal, this reduces logically to living as animals in nature before we evolved. And if that is the case, then what does it matter if the socialist is evil? Then they TOO are acting with self preservation Adam-smith style but via larger means of power via populations rather than the guns that the more restricted groups of the right has accidental inherited powers to use against the population.

P.S. I hate politics because I cannot see a resolution favorable to all. I am only against the strict assumptions here against what is deemed 'socialist' when any government is necessarily a social construct. But I understand that the rhetoric used in this by anyone with the extremes are NOT sincerely anti-people but meant for the survival of their own preservation in light of evolution itself. As such, don't think I disrespect your views. They just don't help ME survive better in light of competition where I've struggled when all politics default to favoring the GROUP regardless of claims to the contrary.

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:14 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:43 pm
So don't you think its about time you abandoned, -and then got down on your knees and humbly apologised for -, the deadly stupidity your evil political doctrine ? I do.
As usual, you're projecting your crazy crap onto others. So convinced of the insanity in your head. Why don't you apologize for being such an ignorant hate-spewing asshole?
Lacewing

I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF. No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it. It was great see Trump make a point of emphasising that option to the contemptible, US-bashing, Al Quada apologist, Muslim Senator Ilhan Omar.

Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane (with a one way ticket) to sunny Venezuela or some other socialist shit-hole like Cuba. i'm sure the super- awesome , mystical, healing power of your love would be greatly appreciated in Caracas (don't forget to pack lots of your New Age crystals, and Runes, as well, sister the the cosmic energy they radiate will cure the city's economic woes in a flash !).

In short, If you love socialism, and you think it's kwell, your are not fit to live in the US, sweetheart; so why don't you "do the right thing" and piss off; the sooner the better!


Regards

Dachshund

(Der Uberweiner)

mickthinks
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by mickthinks » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:26 am

Fuck off, cretin.

lol This from the loon two-fisting his keyboard in ALLCAPS like a retard with a personality disorder and an inferiority complex.

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:54 am

mickthinks wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:26 am
Fuck off, cretin.

lol This from the loon two-fisting his keyboard in ALLCAPS like a retard with a personality disorder and an inferiority complex.
Are you a girl?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests