the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Belinda]

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Good Marxist communist doctrine.

Guess who will have all the needs? Every slimy lazy parasite and useless bum on earth.
Guess who will be expected to sacrifice what they have produced for the sake of "those who have the needs."

This doctrine that would sacrifice the best of humanity for the sake of worst is call, "moral."

Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.

When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.

RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists.

If he doesn't, I do.

He's right. That's what happens.

I cannot blame you, Immanuel, if that is the sort of life companions you have had and no others. Your life experiences must have restricted your perspective on morals and politics.

[Belinda]

Altruistic Meritocracy trumps Constitutional Democracy
Everyone fully utilising their skill set in order to work for the common good and not merely for themselves
Unfortunately humans are too individualistic to make it possible but it is still the ideal solution in principle

The Satirical origins of meritocracy

Perhaps I don't understand the author of that link, Skepdick. It seems to me the converse of meritocracy is nepotism or inherited wealth. True, clever people who get to the top of the pecking order might become overbearing and over ambitious. That is where the democratic regime, for all its faults, controls and governs their would-be excesses.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh... You're so...

Ad hominem. Not relevant.

And really boring, too.

[Immanuel Can]

RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists.

If he doesn't, I do.

He's right. That's what happens.

I cannot blame you, Immanuel, if that is the sort of life companions you have had and no others.

Socialists, you mean?

Yes, I've known many, many of them, and worked and lived with them for decades -- professors, educators, labourers...all kinds. Some are close friends, as a matter of fact, even now. That's possible because we've managed to respect each other, even while agreeing to disagree about politics.

And I know many conservatives, as well, of course.

However, all that's immaterial. RC is right.

[Belinda]

If he doesn't, I do.

He's right. That's what happens.

I cannot blame you, Immanuel, if that is the sort of life companions you have had and no others.

Socialists, you mean?

Yes, I've known many, many of them, and worked and lived with them for decades. Some are close friends, as a matter of fact. We've managed to respect each other, even while agreeing to disagree about politics. And I know many conservatives, as well.

But RC is right.

I don't deny there are some good men who are also tories but not so many. Do you think people should inherit sufficient wealth so they can put their sons into the sort of top schools that cost ££££££s or $$$$$$s and thereby exclude the sons of poor men?

[Lacewing]

Oh... You're so...

Ad hominem. Not relevant.

And really boring, too.

Oh, it's relevant. And truthful! Your experience or preferred opinion is not an accurate representation of the diverse nature and potential throughout groups of people. You ignore when anyone who identifies with such a group or perspective tells you otherwise. You say you know better. Perhaps you find truth boring and unsuitable for the needs of your ego.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think people should inherit sufficient wealth...

"Think"? Why should what I "think" of what they do be relevant? Who made me their judge?

Now, I know that one of the Socialist delusions is that there is only so much money possible in the world, so much value, and we are in a zero sum game, in which one person's win is everybody else's loss, and no new value can be added. The idea is evidently ridiculous, but it's strongly believed; because how else can they justify their green-eyed envy of everyone else's wealth? And how else can they explain their urge to steal it? It must somehow be considered 'stolen' from the public good. The mere numbers are supposed to make the argument.

However, what matters it to me who is rich? If they have made money honestly -- say by inventing something or selling something everybody wants to buy -- then how much they made is not my business. And even if they merely inherited their wealth, it's not my business. My business is to attend to the poor from my own means, and to live my own life well -- not to figure out rationales to make me seem righteous while I commandeer other people's money.

Now, if they have been criminal or evil, we can speak to the justice system about that. But so long as they have not stolen or ill-gotten their gains, who am I to judge them? And who knows what benefits they are giving to others...or not? I am not God. They do not answer to me.

Meanwhile, this I do know: envy is a vice. If I indulge, then it is I who am wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh... You're so...

Ad hominem. Not relevant.

And really boring, too.

Oh, it's relevant.

Not logical. Not responding. Not bothering.

[RCSaunders]

Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.

When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.

This is bullshit.

I know a lot of people, including myself, who have comfortable lives that we've worked very hard for, and we would accept "less" (such as Universal income) so that others could have enough. So, NO, you are incorrect... the socialist is NOT "always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to produce". You frame it that way because you're too close-minded or ignorant to know better and you have to justify your own narrow thinking and self-absorbed attitude. You should stop spreading extremist ignorant crap. How about you START THERE.

No one objects to you choosing to have less to help others you choose to help. My wife and I certainly have less than we might have if we had not helped others, but it was our choice. The objection is to forcing people to, "help," others against their will. Who is stopping anyone from helping anyone they choose to help.

Just out of curiosity, how do you decide who, "needs help," and, "who must supply it?" Do you just help everyone indiscriminately, rich, poor, honest, dishonest, criminals, rapists, thieves, vandals, along with the decent and productive. Who decides which are the needy and which must sacrifice their own lives for them?

Nobody is objecting to helping others if those others are not going just squander that help on their own self-indulgence, but the choice must be made by the individuals who are providing the help, not some agency of force that produces nothing of value and helps no one.

I certainly don't object to you working for your socialist paradise, whatever you think that is. Do you think no one is ever going to disagree with you? If you really want to know how your socialism, if implemented, will work out, you might like to study Venezuela. I don't think you'd like it.

[Lacewing]

Whenever these socialists invoke the phrase, "the common good," do not be deceived into thinking they are being altruistic or socially conscious. What they mean by the, "common good," is, "their own good," and their dream of having and enjoying what they could never produce or earn on their own and living in luxury at other's expense.

When a socialist talks about self-sacrifice, it means you sacrificing yourself for him. The socialist is always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to actually produce anything that could meet anyone's needs, not even his own.

This is bullshit.

I know a lot of people, including myself, who have comfortable lives that we've worked very hard for, and we would accept "less" (such as Universal income) so that others could have enough. So, NO, you are incorrect... the socialist is NOT "always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to produce".

The objection is to forcing people to, "help," others against their will.

That's not what you said above.

[RCSaunders]

RC Saunders, you don't personally know any real people who are socialists. Your knowledge of man's recent past is blinded by reason of your confirmation bias. If you knew what I know about the lives and work of real people who were socialists you would not write what you did write.

Are you a socialist, Belinda?

I became a socialist when I learned that was the political name for what the nicest people do.

Well, I agree socialists spout a lot "nice" sounding platitudes, but that doesn't really make someone nice does it? Do your really regard Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Mao Zedong, and Nicolás Maduro as the nicest people? I hope you don't think I'm nice.

[Belinda]

Do you think people should inherit sufficient wealth...

"Think"? Why should what I "think" of what they do be relevant? Who made me their judge?

Now, I know that one of the Socialist delusions is that there is only so much money possible in the world, so much value, and we are in a zero sum game, in which one person's win is everybody else's loss, and no new value can be added. The idea is evidently ridiculous, but it's strongly believed; because how else can they justify their green-eyed envy of everyone else's wealth? And how else can they explain their urge to steal it? It must somehow be considered 'stolen' from the public good. The mere numbers are supposed to make the argument.

However, what matters it to me who is rich? If they have made money honestly -- say by inventing something or selling something everybody wants to buy -- then how much they made is not my business. And even if they merely inherited their wealth, it's not my business. My business is to attend to the poor from my own means, and to live my own life well -- not to figure out rationales to make me seem righteous while I commandeer other people's money.

Now, if they have been criminal or evil, we can speak to the justice system about that. But so long as they have not stolen or ill-gotten their gains, who am I to judge them? And who knows what benefits they are giving to others...or not? I am not God. They do not answer to me.

Meanwhile, this I do know: envy is a vice. If I indulge, then it is I who am wrong.

A lot of inherited wealth originated in theft and worse.
Economic growth must give in to the ecological imperative.
"Envy is a vice" is true. But that is a straw man.
True, some men are richer than others and it will always be so. But the scale of the difference between rich and poor signifies injustice. In England for instance, children often have no free adventures in the countryside because most of the land is privately owned and trespassers are kept out. Land use is where to find one of the worst injustices.
You may give a lot to charitable causes, Immanuel, but modern life is such that charities an charitable individuals cannot manage to distribute wealth more fairly to people who are in need.

"Think"? Why should what I "think" of what they do be relevant? Who made me their judge?

In a democracy you are the judge of what laws ought to be. It is your duty to judge and vote accordingly.

[RCSaunders]

This is bullshit.

I know a lot of people, including myself, who have comfortable lives that we've worked very hard for, and we would accept "less" (such as Universal income) so that others could have enough. So, NO, you are incorrect... the socialist is NOT "always the one with the needs, never the one with the ability or ambition to produce".

The objection is to forcing people to, "help," others against their will.

That's not what you said above.

I've been on this forum for some time and have never voiced objection to helping others if one chooses to. All that I said above addresses the fact that socialism assumes helping others must be, "enforced," which always means sacrificing the best to the worst. Socialism is a political view that is not possible without repression. That is what I object to.

[Lacewing]

I've been on this forum for some time and have never voiced objection to helping others if one chooses to.

I believe you. I was commenting on what you said that was bullshit in addition to whatever else you were trying to say.

[Immanuel Can]

A lot of inherited wealth originated in theft and worse.

Call the justice department. Present your evidence. Get an indictment, and have them jailed.

Economic growth must give in to the ecological imperative.

Not really relevant to your original question, but okay. What "imperative" do you mean?

"Envy is a vice" is true. But that is a straw man.

No, it's a universal moral precept, actually.

If I recall, you claimed elsewhere to believe in the 10 Commandments -- and it's numbers 8 and 10.

True, some men are richer than others and it will always be so.

I didn't say that, and in fact, it's not necessarily true. The top 1% and the top 10% are fluid...people get into them and fall out of them all the time, dependent on things like new wealth-creation and fiscal mismanagement, to say nothing of luck.

But the scale of the difference between rich and poor signifies injustice.

No, it signals that some people are more successful than others. Not that all rich persons are virtuous, for sure. Some are criminals, too. And it signals that things like addiction, abuse, single motherhood, indolence, risk-aversion, lack of imagination, indifference to education, and plain old stupidity come with fiscal consequences.

In England for instance, children often have no free adventures in the countryside because most of the land is privately owned and trespassers are kept out. Land use is where to find one of the worst injustices.

Old news, though. England has been completely enclosed since the 17th Century. It was that lack of opportunity that spurred many great waves of European emigration to the New World. Unfortunately for England, it's a small place with a large population, and it's surrounded by water. So there aren't many options for new land.

You may give a lot to charitable causes, Immanuel, but modern life is such that charities an charitable individuals cannot manage to distribute wealth more fairly to people who are in need.

This, I can assure you, is categorically untrue. Without saying too much, I can tell you for a definite fact that an honest charity can change people's lives at the most profound level.

But if, perchance, you've not looked lately at what good charities are achieving in the Developing World, you really, really should. It's at least a metaphorical "miracle," if not an actual one. But you're right that it's a story too little known right now. The press doesn't really care, I guess.

"Think"? Why should what I "think" of what they do be relevant? Who made me their judge?

In a democracy you are the judge of what laws ought to be. It is your duty to judge and vote accordingly.

In a democracy, it's my right to judge politicians and policies, not private citizens. And my vote is not an expression of my envy of the rich...and definitely should not be used to create Socialist totalitarianism, which is inherently anti-democratic.