Ukraine Crisis

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:35 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:23 am

Russian oligarchs aren't much different.
Popeye's not wrong about that. Neither are you, Gary.

Here's what always puzzles me, though. It's people who know that the various governments -- both Russian and American -- are manipulating the narrative and abusing people...and they insist that the solution to that is more big government. Like, maybe even global governance, or if not that, at least a more and more bloated and top-heavy national welfare state.

That's like fighting a flood by using a fire hose, or fighting a fire by using gasoline. How is there anybody who thinks that the problems of tyrannical governments can be fixed by giving more power to governments? :shock:
I agree. A large cumbersome government is inefficient and prone to corruption. So are large corporations and individuals who accumulate more wealth than that which they need to live and reasonably flourish. individuals shouldn't be allowed inordinate power or ownership in society to such an extent that they become defacto emperors.
But Gary, Socialism is THE most top-heavy kind of government.

Under Socialism, the government has control of everything, and one man ends up in control of the government. There are no competitors to keep them honest, no market-forces to indicate to them when they are being irrational, and no money they're working with that is their own, so they have no reason to be careful in how it's burned up, and nobody left to hold the government accountable. That's why Socialism has always been and will always be the first choice of dictators, from Stalin to Hitler and Mussolini, to Mao and Pol Pot, and to Mugabe, Castro and Ceacescu: it puts control of everything in one place, the singular government that cannot be challenged, and thereby into the hands of its leading figure, the dictator. It never fails: Socialism is the immediate road to dictatorship by a singular, monolithic government controlled by a strong man. It's happened in 100% of history's cases.

So how can anyone who knows how deadly big government is be an advocate of Socialism?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:13 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:35 am
Popeye's not wrong about that. Neither are you, Gary.

Here's what always puzzles me, though. It's people who know that the various governments -- both Russian and American -- are manipulating the narrative and abusing people...and they insist that the solution to that is more big government. Like, maybe even global governance, or if not that, at least a more and more bloated and top-heavy national welfare state.

That's like fighting a flood by using a fire hose, or fighting a fire by using gasoline. How is there anybody who thinks that the problems of tyrannical governments can be fixed by giving more power to governments? :shock:
I agree. A large cumbersome government is inefficient and prone to corruption. So are large corporations and individuals who accumulate more wealth than that which they need to live and reasonably flourish. individuals shouldn't be allowed inordinate power or ownership in society to such an extent that they become defacto emperors.
But Gary, Socialism is THE most top-heavy kind of government.

Under Socialism, the government has control of everything, and one man ends up in control of the government. There are no competitors to keep them honest, no market-forces to indicate to them when they are being irrational, and no money they're working with that is their own, so they have no reason to be careful in how it's burned up, and nobody left to hold the government accountable. That's why Socialism has always been and will always be the first choice of dictators, from Stalin to Hitler and Mussolini, to Mao and Pol Pot, and to Mugabe, Castro and Ceacescu: it puts control of everything in one place, the singular government that cannot be challenged, and thereby into the hands of its leading figure, the dictator. It never fails: Socialism is the immediate road to dictatorship by a singular, monolithic government controlled by a strong man. It's happened in 100% of history's cases.

So how can anyone who knows how deadly big government is be an advocate of Socialism?
I would call what I described above "anarchism", not "socialism". until you limit the accumulation of excessive wealth, you're just going to have defacto emperors, people who control more than they need and can control other people as a result. Excessive wealth is preserved through the creation of large governments, and the creation of police, and armies.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:31 am I would call what I described above "anarchism", not "socialism".
"Anarchism" is having no rules at all, and no government at all. It's a radical idea, and one that's never been tried because of its impracticality, more than anything.
until you limit the accumulation of excessive wealth, you're just going to have defacto emperors,
That doesn't add up, Gary. Wealth is not a zero-sum game; it's not the case that there's only so much "wealth" in the world, and one guy having more means somebody else having less. It doesn't work that way.

Wealth can be created. When you invent something, or create something, or write something original, or entertain people, improve something, or make a new device, what you're doing is adding wealth to total stock available in the world, not stealing it from somebody who already has it...or should have it.

That's one of the fundamental Socialist mistakes -- to think that all wealth is ill-gotten, and all wealthy people are evil. Behind that is nothing more than a spirit of envy and greed, even when it puts on the smiling face of "social justice." They're just plain wrong: the truth is that some wealthy people are thieves, and some are oppressors. But some are generous, clever, creative and magnanimous....rather like poor people are. Socialists never think about that...or choose not to.
Excessive wealth is preserved through the creation of large governments, and the creation of police, and armies.
Again, too simple. Actually, wealth is created many ways...some legit, and some not. But you're right about this; that the government is the ally of people with money, especially if they are willing to share it with government officials. They're no ally of the people.

Think about it this way: when has a government program done anything well? Name one that isn't awash in waste of taxpayer dollars, and where the money is not being syphoned off to projects not in the general public interest or sucked up by the multitude of bureaucrats created and empowered by the government itself to "regulate" where tax dollars are going. When was big government ever a good idea?
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:13 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:35 am
Popeye's not wrong about that. Neither are you, Gary.

Here's what always puzzles me, though. It's people who know that the various governments -- both Russian and American -- are manipulating the narrative and abusing people...and they insist that the solution to that is more big government. Like, maybe even global governance, or if not that, at least a more and more bloated and top-heavy national welfare state.

That's like fighting a flood by using a fire hose, or fighting a fire by using gasoline. How is there anybody who thinks that the problems of tyrannical governments can be fixed by giving more power to governments? :shock:
I agree. A large cumbersome government is inefficient and prone to corruption. So are large corporations and individuals who accumulate more wealth than that which they need to live and reasonably flourish. individuals shouldn't be allowed inordinate power or ownership in society to such an extent that they become defacto emperors.
But Gary, Socialism is THE most top-heavy kind of government.

Under Socialism, the government has control of everything, and one man ends up in control of the government. There are no competitors to keep them honest, no market-forces to indicate to them when they are being irrational, and no money they're working with that is their own, so they have no reason to be careful in how it's burned up, and nobody left to hold the government accountable. That's why Socialism has always been and will always be the first choice of dictators, from Stalin to Hitler and Mussolini, to Mao and Pol Pot, and to Mugabe, Castro and Ceacescu: it puts control of everything in one place, the singular government that cannot be challenged, and thereby into the hands of its leading figure, the dictator. It never fails: Socialism is the immediate road to dictatorship by a singular, monolithic government controlled by a strong man. It's happened in 100% of history's cases.

So how can anyone who knows how deadly big government is be an advocate of Socialism?
Immanuel's criticism of socialism is true of socialism and also of capitalism when not moderated by democracy. Democracy is precious and vulnerable. Immanuel Can's metaphysical stance is not objectionable but his political conviction would be dangerous to democracy if IC had a voice.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:01 pm Democracy is precious and vulnerable.
You aren't differentiating here, and you need to.

"Direct democracy" is one thing. "representative democracy" another. Direct democracy means that everybody gets a say in what happens. Representative democracy means everybody gets to choose a representative, and this representative stands in the place of his electors, or at least in place of the majority of them, not all. So representative democracy isn't actual democracy...it's a proxy for it, the closest that can be managed in a large society.

Direct democracy is impossible in a state of any size beyond a small city. Representative democracy only works in a multi-party system, and even there means that the "demos," the people are not all represented. What you are used to is representative democracy, not actual democracy.

Socialism doesn't just threaten democracy in both forms, it destroys both. Socialism needs a one-party system, so as to take control of all essential functions, from the military, to the police, to the public works, to education, to controlling the economy, to controlling the means of production, to regulating all wages, to the health system, to public morals, to the information media, and so on and so on. It cannot have many parties and a free vote from the people. That would divide its powers and ability to governmentally manipulate these key features.

So it destroys all democracy in the name of "the people" whom it never serves...it serves its leader, his vision and his interests, as he engineers the totality of a given society to fit his ideology. The people starve, and the leader grows fat while human rights disappear and the economy burns.

It's happened in 100% of the historical attempts at Socialism on a national scale. 100%. It's never worked. It has only ever crashed the economy and piled up the corpses.

So if you care about the "demos," the people, then you have no time for Socialism.
Belinda
Posts: 8032
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:01 pm Democracy is precious and vulnerable.
You aren't differentiating here, and you need to.

"Direct democracy" is one thing. "representative democracy" another. Direct democracy means that everybody gets a say in what happens. Representative democracy means everybody gets to choose a representative, and this representative stands in the place of his electors, or at least in place of the majority of them, not all. So representative democracy isn't actual democracy...it's a proxy for it, the closest that can be managed in a large society.

Direct democracy is impossible in a state of any size beyond a small city. Representative democracy only works in a multi-party system, and even there means that the "demos," the people are not all represented. What you are used to is representative democracy, not actual democracy.

Socialism doesn't just threaten democracy in both forms, it destroys both. Socialism needs a one-party system, so as to take control of all essential functions, from the military, to the police, to the public works, to education, to controlling the economy, to controlling the means of production, to regulating all wages, to the health system, to public morals, to the information media, and so on and so on. It cannot have many parties and a free vote from the people. That would divide its powers and ability to governmentally manipulate these key features.

So it destroys all democracy in the name of "the people" whom it never serves...it serves its leader, his vision and his interests, as he engineers the totality of a given society to fit his ideology. The people starve, and the leader grows fat while human rights disappear and the economy burns.

It's happened in 100% of the historical attempts at Socialism on a national scale. 100%. It's never worked. It has only ever crashed the economy and piled up the corpses.

So if you care about the "demos," the people, then you have no time for Socialism.
Well yes, but democratic countries have regular elections when the people may throw out a bad government. If the bad government happens to be Conservative then the electorate can choose a more socialist government.

You always link socialism and dictatorship. I guess your dislike of socialism is visceral not reasoned.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:04 pm Well yes, but democratic countries have regular elections when the people may throw out a bad government. If the bad government happens to be Conservative then the electorate can choose a more socialist government.
A Socialist government alweays ends up eliminating free elections.

They can't have them because the Socialists don't see anyone else's rule as being even possibly legitimate, and because a Socialist agenda is always premised on the government controlling everything important. So they cannot allow any genuine opposition, or any other political schemes to alter their plans. Socialism, they believe, can only work with Big Government being in control of everything, perpetually. And since they see Socialism as the only possible route to the good, they don't even believe opposition has a right to exist.
You always link socialism and dictatorship.
I don't have to. They do it for me...in 100% of the cases. 100% is pretty darn convincing data, wouldn't you say?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 12:01 pm Democracy is precious and vulnerable.
You aren't differentiating here, and you need to.

"Direct democracy" is one thing. "representative democracy" another. Direct democracy means that everybody gets a say in what happens. Representative democracy means everybody gets to choose a representative, and this representative stands in the place of his electors, or at least in place of the majority of them, not all. So representative democracy isn't actual democracy...it's a proxy for it, the closest that can be managed in a large society.

Direct democracy is impossible in a state of any size beyond a small city. Representative democracy only works in a multi-party system, and even there means that the "demos," the people are not all represented. What you are used to is representative democracy, not actual democracy.

Socialism doesn't just threaten democracy in both forms, it destroys both. Socialism needs a one-party system, so as to take control of all essential functions, from the military, to the police, to the public works, to education, to controlling the economy, to controlling the means of production, to regulating all wages, to the health system, to public morals, to the information media, and so on and so on. It cannot have many parties and a free vote from the people. That would divide its powers and ability to governmentally manipulate these key features.

So it destroys all democracy in the name of "the people" whom it never serves...it serves its leader, his vision and his interests, as he engineers the totality of a given society to fit his ideology. The people starve, and the leader grows fat while human rights disappear and the economy burns.

It's happened in 100% of the historical attempts at Socialism on a national scale. 100%. It's never worked. It has only ever crashed the economy and piled up the corpses.

So if you care about the "demos," the people, then you have no time for Socialism.
Well yes, but democratic countries have regular elections when the people may throw out a bad government. If the bad government happens to be Conservative then the electorate can choose a more socialist government.

You always link socialism and dictatorship. I guess your dislike of socialism is visceral not reasoned.
As with many Christian evangelicals, he doesn't believe in bad luck, only in God's will. So everyone gets what they deserve according to God's plan. Victims deserve their misery and the fortunate deserve their good fortune unless of course, the fortunate start talking about socialism and economic justice, then they're tyrants.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by promethean75 »

Hurtin em, Gar. Hurtin em.
Walker
Posts: 14246
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Walker »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 pmVictims deserve ...
"Victims deserve." This is the paradigm of what Gary believes, and hangs onto.

*

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Victim

1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
- the schools are victims of the social system
: such as

a(1)
: one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions
a victim of cancer
a victim of the auto crash
a murder victim
(2)
: one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attack

b
: one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

2 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite

*

Commentary:
Sacrifice? Deity? Politics? Religious rite?

Has Merriam or Webster been tinkering?
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Walker wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 4:36 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 pmVictims deserve ...
"Victims deserve." This is the paradigm of what Gary believes, and hangs onto.

*

From Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Victim

1 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent
- the schools are victims of the social system
: such as

a(1)
: one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions
a victim of cancer
a victim of the auto crash
a murder victim
(2)
: one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment
a frequent victim of political attack

b
: one that is tricked or duped
a con man's victim

2 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite

*

Commentary:
Sacrifice? Deity? Politics? Religious rite?

Has Merriam or Webster been tinkering?
If you ever get screwed in life, Walker. Then you'll appreciate that there are people who will speak up. Until then, it's only going to be a mystery to you.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 pm As with many Christian evangelicals, he doesn't believe in bad luck, only in God's will.
Hmmm...apparently, you don't know what I believe, Gary. You're right that I don't believe in luck, but it's not because I think everything is simply "God's will." In fact, humans are free agents; they are quite capable of choosing things that are NOT the will of God.
So everyone gets what they deserve according to God's plan. Victims deserve their misery and the fortunate deserve their good fortune

That would be Hinduism. It's called "karma," and it has nothing at all to do with anything I believe.
...unless of course, the fortunate start talking about socialism and economic justice, then they're tyrants.
People aren't tyrants for "talking about Socialism." They end up supporting tyrants when they DO Socialism.

Tyrants love Socialism because it gives them exactly what they want...centralized power, under a one-party system. As for the tyrant's useful dupes, the "social justice" collectivist, big government types, what starts off for them as a posture about "justice" ends up producing the most gross kinds of injustices...and has done so in 100% of the cases in all of human history.

You can't really argue with a record of failure like that. Not much gets to be horribly wrong 100% of the time, but somehow, Socialism manages to do it.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:02 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 11:52 pm As with many Christian evangelicals, he doesn't believe in bad luck, only in God's will.
Hmmm...apparently, you don't know what I believe, Gary. You're right that I don't believe in luck, but it's not because I think everything is simply "God's will." In fact, humans are free agents; they are quite capable of choosing things that are NOT the will of God.
So everyone gets what they deserve according to God's plan. Victims deserve their misery and the fortunate deserve their good fortune

That would be Hinduism. It's called "karma," and it has nothing at all to do with anything I believe.
...unless of course, the fortunate start talking about socialism and economic justice, then they're tyrants.
People aren't tyrants for "talking about Socialism." They end up supporting tyrants when they DO Socialism.

Tyrants love Socialism because it gives them exactly what they want...centralized power, under a one-party system. As for the tyrant's useful dupes, the "social justice" collectivist, big government types, what starts off for them as a posture about "justice" ends up producing the most gross kinds of injustices...and has done so in 100% of the cases in all of human history.

You can't really argue with a record of failure like that. Not much gets to be horribly wrong 100% of the time, but somehow, Socialism manages to do it.
If you don't believe in luck, then you literally believe that everything is God's will. So God either wrongly screws some of us over with diseases or else he rightfully screws some of us over with diseases. Which is it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:20 am If you don't believe in luck, then you literally believe that everything is God's will.
No, "luck" is not the only alternative to "God's will." For example, there is human will, which can be, and often is, quite contrary to God's will. So what you've claimed there, Gary, is what we call a "false dichotomy." It's an error in logic.
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: Ukraine Crisis

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:48 am
Gary Childress wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 12:20 am If you don't believe in luck, then you literally believe that everything is God's will.
No, "luck" is not the only alternative to "God's will." For example, there is human will, which can be, and often is, quite contrary to God's will. So what you've claimed there, Gary, is what we call a "false dichotomy." It's an error in logic.
Per usual you evaded my question above, unless you believe that diseases are the fault of human beings.
Post Reply