the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

I default to recognizing we live in a limited finite space in limited finite time.

Individually, this is true. But wealth-creation is not a zero-sum game. More of it can be made. That's readily apparent.

Take computers, for example. Before they were thought of, there was no wealth to be had from building computers. Once Billy Gates and the others figured out how to do it, people wanted to buy tons of them, and Billy became rich. Did he steal from anybody else? No. Was some other person made poorer because BG invented his computer? No. New wealth was generated by Billy's new idea.

That's what Socialists always get wrong. They think wealth is zero-sum. And it's just not. That's why when you write,

If people were not 'slaves' to anyone, no one COULD be ''wealthier" than another.

...it's just not true. Billy Gates is richer than I. But he's never enslaved me, or taken a single cent from my pocket that I was not happy to provide. He earned it, and I was delighted to pay him for his invention. We both won.

Communism is SO simple-minded, really. It assumes that "class" accounts for everything, and economics is the dominant mode of human motivation. But perhaps its most foolish and unrealistic feature is that it treats all wealth as zero sum. That's how it assumes that nobody rich ever could have become rich legitimately, and why anybody poor is just a victim. But that's nonsense. Sure, there are people who are victims of others. And there are rich people who got their wealth illegitimately. But that is actually not often the case, particularly in a modern, open economy. In our kind of economy, the wealthy class is actually fluid and changeable: people rise into it and fall out of it all the time. So it's a very egalitarian kind of elitism: anybody's allowed to rise, so long as they have an idea, a service or a strategy that sells. And people fall out of that elite as well. So it's not a fixed class at all.

Communism is really nothing but the elevation of envy. As Orwell, said, the Socialists don't love the poor...they just hate the rich. And you can see that, because the Communists aren't out helping the Developing World, or giving to charities, or improving prison conditions, or delivering street people and drug addicts, or even making black neighbourhoods more liveable...they don't really care about the poor at all; they just want to pull down the successful, and grab their stuff.

[Scott Mayers]

As I tried to post I see that you (Immanuel) have posted above. This is to the prior post but as you'll see will respond to some of that too.

"Socialism" to me is "any system devoted to society as a whole".

That is not the common definition of "Socialism." For example, see: https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Soc ... lism%22%5D.

So you're going to have to be clear, Scott, that the government you're wanting to see come about is NOT what everybody else calls "Socialism."

You just 'happened' to pick an extreme capitalist's DEFINITIONS arbitrarily? I don't need you to tell me what "socialism" is. That site is propaganda FOR the 'capitalist' EXTREME, not FACT.

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

The proof is partly in the title. "Liberty" is NOT an 'economic' term but an expression of a right-wing declaration of intent: THEIR 'liberty' to EXPLOIT others. The propaganda is set up to deceptive by selectively being the one to define it. The fact that the 'author' (Robert Heilbroner) also picked the EXTREME option that makes out 'socialist governments' to be DISTINCT from the people they serve is also telling.

ALL governments use 'central planning' and 'controls' over something. The dictators (not the Karl Marx' use of the term in a day when it would translate to 'speaker of the house' in our systems today) use 'central planning' regardless of whether they do it IN OFFICE or through the auspices of their 'OWN' territory of privilege. That is, without PEOPLE who run the government that THEY 'own' as a part of society rightfully the wealthy class you favor are the ones who get to ARBITRARILY RULE from their ideal 'private propery' domain that all other people are literal SLAVES to abide by.

The problems exist regarding bureaucracy is due to the fact that PEOPLE have so many different views that the minimum agreement among ALL tend to diminish the effects that someone like a single 'owner' (a 'dictator' of those they rule over by ownership privilege) can command. But it would still be a system RUN BY THE PEOPLE, not by your arrogant selfish interests to destroy the parts that POLICE you appropriately. When your ideals persist, the owners ARE the government and the rest are expected to be 'controlled' by what you leave IN 'government': POLICE who are ONLY SERVE your ownership protections, and completely annihilate any MEANS to POLICE them by things like 'regulations'. Talking about failures of 'socialist' leaning systems, you intentionally overlook this or are just a 'supremacist' who doesn't give a shit about the concerns of those outside your own family and cult.

You don't fool me. You are that malfunction and cruelty that that linked article that FEIGNS is about 'socialists' and not themselves. I already know that there are flaws in government. I don't like them either but also KNOW that MOST of the reason for failures where they exist are due to 'coups' by rougue right-wing exploiters who work to either destroy the system from within (like the terrorists tend to do) or EMBRACE the 'socialist' (or 'communist') label but find means to ACT as THOUGH the system still belongs to the people when they don't. It is the selfish greedy fucks who believe in using economic scams and technical exploits who have the DRIVE most to behave tyranical. Trump proved this in his own coup attempt. And you no doubt think he's a good guy regardless of his anti-democratic intent to steal the American's government as an extension of the privileged.

So don't tell me who is the fucking 'evil' assholes are. "Socialism" is precisely as I stated. The above definition you assholes beg is true is to propogate some illusion that the 'government' is completely SEPARATE from the people. YOU are the kind of person who when IMBEDDED in a 'democratic' government would find some means to undermine it, steal from the taxpayer by using the money for policing the poor ONLY and make sure that the guns are in your PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL non-democratic powers. ALL the abuses of those 'socialist' ideals throughout time have come from YOUR mental thinkers. All government is 'socialist' and why they called the general introductory to politics in highschool, "social studies". The churches are 'socialists' of the definition you give WHEN they have the power that your right-wingers tend to pass the socialist responsibilities to. You then can have MORE power.

Your own attitude IS why those 'socialist' systems fail: you MAKE them fail

I promise you, Scott, I have personally not made any Socialist system fail. Not one. All the Socialist systems that have failed, which is all that have ever existed, have failed for their own reasons. I was not even present when they failed.

Your KIND of attitude, not you particularly. I don't even know you. [I removed some perjorative adjectives here and elsewhere on editing where I am trying to keep my cool with you. But don't mistake this for being less serious. I want the argument to stand without you thinking this is anger towards you as a person.]

But I think you're onto something very important when you say it's an "attitude" that causes Socialism always to fail: it's the attitude that assumes human beings can always be trusted to do the right thing. It's also the attitude that says that the real problems with people and society are economic, not spiritual. And it's the attitude of trust of big government to deliver us all from sin, that invariably opens the door the tyrants and despots to take over a Socialist state and kill its people.

No, only when those like yourself GET in positions of power in those systems as I just mentioned. Socialism is rooted in the fucking term, "social" and is that concept the differentiates those PEOPLE-ORIENTED folks who believe in sharing and NOT exploiting PERSONAL PRIVATE interests that are "anti-social", like the Osama bin Ladens, Kim Jun Un, Hitler, Donald Trump, etc.

AND, if 'economics' is ALL that you think governments should be involved in, why is it that the PRIME major interest that the conservative's first choice to remove are ANY AND ALL parts of government that 'social' governments set up to PREVENT ABUSES and exploitation. You want a system that decrees power to those with the fortune to 'conserve' your greedy position and go OUT OF YOUR WAY to make sure NO protections are granted FOR those who do not own.

You are so full of it here.

All these things are bad "attitudes" that are implicated in Socialism. However, I do not participate in any of them.

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too.

No, no, Scott: it was not. That's a myth.

Socialism, as you see above in the definition, did not even exist at that time, for one thing. For another, Christ said things like "The poor you will always have among you," and Paul said, "Tell the rich to be generous." These are not things one says in a Socialist state. In a Socialist state, all one says is "Take what the government gives you."

And there is the con. You cherry picked a definition of the late 1800s. And it MUST have been heaven up until the first formation of any of Karl Marx type of socialist formulation. You BEG that the Christians weren't socialist only.

"Tell the rich to be generous" in the context of removing the contrast of wealth in such a 'socialism' of your given defintion is moot. Of course the 'rich' wold be told to be generous in a socialist system; they just ENFORCE it because greedy selfish beings have a tendency to NOT volunteer what they "profit" from. Throughout time, the selfish individuals OR the 'wealth conserving minority' are the ones who spoil all governments. "Take what the government gives you," is better represented in contrast to what your kind of 'government' thinkers believe: "take what the poor and innocent have instead to give to the wealthy ONLY"? What hypocrisy.

But I know that this propogandizing is intentionally a facade you are also attempting to exploit. You know that strength of the exploiters are those who have the POWER represented by wealth and in the LEAST numbers. The reason your side wins more often is ONLY due to the things that you declare with EASE when you only require ONE or FEW powerfully wealthy persons to unilaterally decide for ALL the rest of society what is or is not 'right'. It makes for quick lawmaking and successful action to have a CEO-like leader to decide for the rest compared to that 'evil' socialist system that relies on COMMUNITY decision making. In a socialist system, governments are 'democratic', in anti-social systems, governments are the arrogant privileged exploiters of spoiled children who think the world is ONLY rightfully theirs and the rest are expected to be your servants.

And by the way, although Karl Marx never saw his ideals proposed, he ironically argued vehemently that ALL systems of governments go through unavoidable cycles that at one point is favorable to the people in general, then becomes spoiled as those in government tend to become more and more run through the same families until the dictatorial child or children of one of these families TURN the system into a tyranical 'ownership' of their own and NOT of the people. This system cannot be overthrown without 'revolution' and why Marx suggested this as necessary....and why the Left has been REACTING to adopting the very strong arm tactics that are normally ONLY a function of the 'conservative' wealth.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't need you to tell me what "socialism" is.

Apparently, you do.

Your own attitude IS why those 'socialist' systems fail: you MAKE them fail

I promise you, Scott, I have personally not made any Socialist system fail. Not one. All the Socialist systems that have failed, which is all that have ever existed, have failed for their own reasons. I was not even present when they failed.

Your KIND of attitude, not you particularly.

You don't know my attitude. And it seems you don't know why Socialism has always failed.

But in point of fact, that sort of explanation is exactly why Socialism is so homicidal. When it fails, which it always does, its proponents look around for people to hate and blame for the failure. In your case, you say "your type." But you could have equally chosen "capitalists," "conspirators," "anti-revolutionaries," "kulaks," "Jews," "moderates," "traitors," or any of the other groups Socialists choose to blame when their scheme goes wrong. And them march them all off to the gulags. Or shoot them.

I want the argument to stand without you thinking this is anger towards you as a person.]

Very admirable. I take the same view with regard to you, Scott.

But I think you're onto something very important when you say it's an "attitude" that causes Socialism always to fail: it's the attitude that assumes human beings can always be trusted to do the right thing. It's also the attitude that says that the real problems with people and society are economic, not spiritual. And it's the attitude of trust of big government to deliver us all from sin, that invariably opens the door the tyrants and despots to take over a Socialist state and kill its people.

No, only when those like yourself GET in positions of power in those systems as I just mentioned.

See? That's exactly what Socialists always do. They find somebody else to blame. "The revolution has been betrayed from without and within," they cry, "that's why it has not succeeded yet." Then, "Kill the traitors," comes next.

You're just demonstrating the truth of my thesis, Scott. Socialism needs to hate. It needs enemies to blame. Because on its own, it's inevitably a failure.

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too.

No, no, Scott: it was not. That's a myth.

"Tell the rich to be generous" in the context of removing the contrast of wealth in such a 'socialism' of your given defintion is moot. Of course the 'rich' wold be told to be generous in a socialist system; they just ENFORCE it because greedy selfish beings have a tendency to NOT volunteer what they "profit" from.

That's hilarious, Scott. And a little disturbing, too, I must admit.

So Jesus Christ says, "Tell the rich to be generous" (i.e., to share, not to stop being rich), and you say it's the equivalent of "Take the rich people's money by force, and make them poor, because they'll never share."

Classic. I'm sorry...I shouldn't laugh...but it's just so...Can you not see the irony there?

As for Marx, he has gone to judgment. I actually hope he manages not to get what he deserves for what he did. I would wish he had changed his mind at the last minute, and maybe realized his folly. But it was too late for all those who followed him, and all those who were destroyed by those who did follow him...the over a hundred million who paid the price for following him in his mistake.

How long until we learn?

[henry quirk]

Scott, try this on for size...

Bill Gates has a net worth of $120.2 billion (accordin' to a net search)

me, my net worth is considerably smaller (I mean considerably smaller)

now, unless I can prove Bill has somehow deprived me of an opportunity to make money, unless I can show that Bill has deprived me of liberty or property, Bill doesn't owe me squat...I've got no claim on his wealth or resources

it may be someone out there has been hoodwinked by Bill...if so, they need to stake their claim, assert it, prove it

but the simple disparity between Bill and me doesn't entitle me to what is Bill's

my need is not a just cause to take his property

I'm not against the idea of having fortune. But there is a problem about limited resources.

I default to recognizing we live in a limited finite space in limited finite time. You are assuming frontiers still exist for all as though we all have the identical power as those who completely cover 'ownership' of all property that exists and is available. You are assuming that those born on this Earth are not 'disadvantaged' even where they lack ANY representation of power.

If people were not 'slaves' to anyone, no one COULD be ''wealthier" than another. Wealth is not some trivial personality or flavor that one 'chooses' to resist. It represents power and thus means that those who 'own' also OWN those who reside on their 'property'. We define OUT 'slavery' as though it doesn't exist without literal chains. But it still exists. For the owner class, they hold all the power OVER those that exist on Earth for merely being born here (as though the poor are aliens that can simply chose to 'float' if they don't want to pay the 'taxes' of the owners demands. Notice that 'tax' is any burden, not just the supposedly hard suffering that the 'owner' classes constantly complain about for having to pay to government. I find this too BLINDLY ignoring their fortune, or, like an immature one year old, as though if you cannot SEE other's conditions of suffering by thinking that ALL people exist through your perception of reality.

The very 'ownership' classes DEPEND on their position of power to steal or enslave those without ownership privileges by the nature of them being able to 'tax' them based upon how desperate they are. The more desperate, the more unfair the owner can be by simply SETTING the terms without negotiation about what 'tax' they can charge. That is 'supply-side' economics. If you HAVE the supply, as ownership implies, you hold power AND WILL ABUSE it. This is NOT something either that can be assured NOT to happen. The owner who also DOESN'T take derogatory advantage of others for 'profit' do not prevent those who do. The greed factor is what that 'incentive' is that permits the abuses.

I'm not against owners IF and ONLY IF it is literally true that ALL people HAVE it with IDENTICAL initial conditions and with the same 'right' to fail as often. [This is ignored by most of you guys: that the poor person required to LABOR for the 'owner' is not allowed to fail without grave consequences more than once, for most. If you get a job in which you fail for whatever reason (not necessarily one's 'own' fault), then they get a bad record on their resume and it could be enough for another 'owner' to opt NOT to hire them OR, what the exploiters who make those Billionaires exist, to make them work harder for less.

To you who declare yourselves 'religious', you also impose upon the poor that they should ACCEPT their misfortune (and 'volunteer' to be slaves with cheerfulness) because some 'god' will FIX things in some glorious afterlife for them. Oddly, I don't get why they themselves don't take this advice and PROVE their religious conviction they impose upon the others by giving everything they 'own' away. Would this not be PROOF for their 'god' that they both believe in the crap they AND that they are not intentionally attempting to decieve the poor by giving them false hope. This world is NOT about 'positive' WILL POWER that the wealthy have over the poor. This is just a con meant to keep their slaves under their thumb.

I'd like to respond, but I'm havin' a hard time with the decipher...bottonline, you're sayin' most live in slavery to folks who control most of the finite resources, yeah?

so, I'm gonna take it that -- yeah -- that's what you're sayin'

it's true, thru most of history, man has lived enslaved to other men, and it's true today a significant portion of men still live in some kind of slavery...the solution, however, is not false equity and redistribution of resource

I'm fond of this...

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" Frédéric Bastiat

...cuz it strikes at the root of your argument: the men who you'd appoint to redistribute, to impose equity, they're better how exactly? these men who are to break the back of the owner class, who will oversee them?

who will watch the watchman?

no, the solution, such as it is, is not the strivin' for a utopia...the solution is recognizin' man is in perpetual conflict with man then fightin' like a mad-man to keep the leash offa your neck...it's not endin' slavers for good (cuz that's not possible) but, instead, always beatin' 'em back

and -- yeah -- there's got to be some internal reorganizin' of priorities: if a man is to be free, then he will sacrifice security

freedom (self-direction and self-responsibility) and security (bein' fed and sheltered as a guarantee) exclude one another

[Immanuel Can]

freedom (self-direction and self-responsibility) and security (bein' fed and sheltered as a guarantee) exclude one another

I am reminded of a line from the American New Wave group, Devo:

"Freedom of choice,
Is what you have;
Freedom from choice,
Is what you want."

Those guys were no fools, actually.

[henry quirk]

freedom (self-direction and self-responsibility) and security (bein' fed and sheltered as a guarantee) exclude one another

I am reminded of a line from the American New Wave group, Devo:

"Freedom of choice,
Is what you have;
Freedom from choice,
Is what you want."

Those guys were no fools, actually.

no, they weren't/aren't

[Scott Mayers]

I don't need you to tell me what "socialism" is.

Apparently, you do.

I promise you, Scott, I have personally not made any Socialist system fail. Not one. All the Socialist systems that have failed, which is all that have ever existed, have failed for their own reasons. I was not even present when they failed.

Your KIND of attitude, not you particularly.

You don't know my attitude. And it seems you don't know why Socialism has always failed.

But in point of fact, that sort of explanation is exactly why Socialism is so homicidal. When it fails, which it always does, its proponents look around for people to hate and blame for the failure. In your case, you say "your type." But you could have equally chosen "capitalists," "conspirators," "anti-revolutionaries," "kulaks," "Jews," "moderates," "traitors," or any of the other groups Socialists choose to blame when their scheme goes wrong. And them march them all off to the gulags. Or shoot them.

I want the argument to stand without you thinking this is anger towards you as a person.]

Very admirable. I take the same view with regard to you, Scott.

It is pissing me off that you ARE using an intentional lie in the identical way that Trump does, which proves to me why your 'side' is the actual problem. Asserting over and over again that you think 'socialism' is evil, ...and by your intentional restricted definition, doesn't make it so for declaring. You are attempting to arguing disputable 'facts' here of which NO ONE can prove nr disprove and prevents meaningful dialogue as it is irrelevant to the particular meanings that I keep expressing but you intentionally ALSO ignore with intent.

Any 'government' is a socialist construct PERIOD! This is not a 'fact' of history that you are digressing to inappropriately; it is a fact of intentional MEANING of 'government'. That there was the view of the concept called, 'democracy', is the form that has BECOME the defining feature of the left given it favore MORE people versus FEW. And if you think your ideal has some MAJORITY (not plural) support, you are arguing against the obvious meaning of "Democrat" versus "Republican". The 'democratic' socialist side means ONE PERSON PER VOTE and that the government is a system devoted to serve the people by the people. The 'republican' ideal is a reference to the "collegiate" vote that represents ONLY select people who are believed to be 'AUTHORITARIAN'. All the votes that get counted in republican ideals trend towards the single DICTATOR as an extreme because the selected elector doesn't even require voting for the majority, even if it is 99% against those people's votes. [this was borrowed from Plato's Republic in the original thought that an ideal leader would be one who is a "philosopher king".

How do you go from assuming the Left as the side that uses SINGLE-minded INDIVIDUAL DICTATORS from being a LARGER INVOLVED SYSTEM of people? And by contrast, how do you assume the Right that believes in a MINIMALIZED system yet don't recognize this makes the TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR as the perfectly 'minimal' system? [If you don't answer this, you ARE NOT being honest.]

But I think you're onto something very important when you say it's an "attitude" that causes Socialism always to fail: it's the attitude that assumes human beings can always be trusted to do the right thing. It's also the attitude that says that the real problems with people and society are economic, not spiritual. And it's the attitude of trust of big government to deliver us all from sin, that invariably opens the door the tyrants and despots to take over a Socialist state and kill its people.

No, only when those like yourself GET in positions of power in those systems as I just mentioned.

See? That's exactly what Socialists always do. They find somebody else to blame. "The revolution has been betrayed from without and within," they cry, "that's why it has not succeeded yet." Then, "Kill the traitors," comes next.

You're just demonstrating the truth of my thesis, Scott. Socialism needs to hate. It needs enemies to blame. Because on its own, it's inevitably a failure.[/quote]
Excuse me? Define this 'hate'. I couldn't even interpret what you said in this last quote given it is blurring the boundaries of whether you are speaking of the 'democratic view' versus the 'authoritarian' view.

Hate exists by those who are INDEPENDENT believers in SMALL governments, who believe in using their present fortunes OR where there is EMBEDDED 'cults' of the same thinking among the side of the majority. The cult, like your arrogant 'myth' of the existence of some 'God', are those who foster 'hate'. But where the Left HAS such rogues, they are relatively disempowered WITHOUT NUMBERS while the right-wing version is more concentrated of particular cults that are Nationalistic and 'Socialist' with respect to demand the world FAVOR the SPECIAL 'wealth' and you OWN as the standard of 'proof' of worth. You are the 'hater' of the vast majority of individuals who are default to have less than you, who won't OBEY your cult's declared religion, and your INTRINSIC BELIEF that it should be 'free' for the rich to use tactics that are worse than the worse criminals on the bottom of the economic ladder. You intentionally again ignore that your stance of 'less government' means less people who OWN the public power and transfer it back to you with ZERO accountability. You believe in lying given your side concentrates on manipulative tactics to stupify the people, steal, cheat, and harm others, all in a way that attempts to cleverly HIDE your accountability.

Your accusations above are PLAYING the 'right-wing' Machiavellian (and Fascist) types of behavior. So you are also attempting to GASLIGHT the society AS a 'dictatorial totalitarian' believer feigning as the opposite knowing you 'hate' the rest of the 'democratic' whole.

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too.

No, no, Scott: it was not. That's a myth.

Stated without substance. Are you then not implying that Jesus rode in on a royal horse (versus the donkey), that he didn't represent the lone person among the crowd who pointed to the King's invisible worth but instead WAS the Royal (wealthy and powerful) King who commands 'faith' in his SUPERIORITY as a DESPOT?

You reverse a lot here. And it proves you are suspect of all that you accuse the majority of innocent people of being. Note that If you think that the majority ARE flawed for being so 'selfish' as to demand a welfare cheque, what makes you think that your side is somehow IMMUNE? Why are those idiotic majority on the Left NOT so smart as to USE your tactics successfully and more often? Which side believe in building up arms, setting up cults and gangs and feeding the war machine and demanding policing be ONLY to protect YOUR wealth?

"Tell the rich to be generous" in the context of removing the contrast of wealth in such a 'socialism' of your given defintion is moot. Of course the 'rich' wold be told to be generous in a socialist system; they just ENFORCE it because greedy selfish beings have a tendency to NOT volunteer what they "profit" from.

That's hilarious, Scott. And a little disturbing, too, I must admit.

So Jesus Christ says, "Tell the rich to be generous" (i.e., to share, not to stop being rich), and you say it's the equivalent of "Take the rich people's money by force, and make them poor, because they'll never share."

Classic. I'm sorry...I shouldn't laugh...but it's just so...Can you not see the irony there?

As for Marx, he has gone to judgment. I actually hope he manages not to get what he deserves for what he did. I would wish he had changed his mind at the last minute, and maybe realized his folly. But it was too late for all those who followed him, and all those who were destroyed by those who did follow him...the over a hundred million who paid the price for following him in his mistake.

How long until we learn?

Karl Marx was a political philosopher primarily. How you interpret him with your innuendo of him sufferring in hell sounds like YOU are GOD!!!??? If you put your money where your mouth is, why are you STEALING God's POWER to final judgement about what YOU think he is. Does he call you up for advice on which people are or are not 'evil'?

There are TRILLIONS of people from the beginning of time who have been abused by those taking over in people-systems (governments) to make them private-systems (non-governments) that then kill off those who refuse to have 'faith' in them.

If you believe God is the Supreme Being who will reward those who 'volunteer' social services rather than by force, I dare you to prove that you ACTUALLY believe by giving up all your wealth voluntarily and help others in ACTION. You're a hypocrite if YOU don't do this. And I am sure that given you assume it alright for the poor masses to be imposed upon that God would favor them if THEY accepted their slavish servitude, then DEMONSTRATE this. Why are you NOT giving up your wealth when it is you claiming to be 'confident' in God's good grace and compassion. Don't worry,....any suffering you have will be rewarded, right?

[henry quirk]

Hate exists by those who are INDEPENDENT believers in SMALL governments

this one of the most wrong-headed, loony tunes, things I've read, in-forum, in a looong time

free men recognizin' a minimal proxy is needed so they don't have to self-defend 24/7, that's hateful

I'll tell you what's hateful: the desire to turn free men into a *human centipede, that's hateful

reducin' man to cog, that's hateful

leashin' some to benefit others, that's hateful

the state: that's hateful

as I quote up-thread...

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" Frédéric Bastiat

folks like me, who look to minimize gov nearly to the point of non-existence, we're not the hateful ones






*net search it...horrifyin' images, horrifyin' notions

[Immanuel Can]

...your 'side' is the actual problem.

Hatred and blame-shifting, Scott. Those are the first strategies Socialism uses.

Socialism ought to own its own evil. But it doesn't. It always finds somebody to blame, somebody to hate, so that it cannot itself be blamed.

The Russian system didn't fail because of Capitalist spies. The Venezuelans are not starving because of "anti-revolutionaries." The Chinese government is not forced to suppress Hong Kong because evil Westerners have made them do it. Socialism does this stuff. It always does. But it never owns its own actions. It never admits that its economic failures are simply because Socialism is economically impractical and unworkable, that it has a foolish view of wealth and how it is created, that it's naive about human nature...it just joins the blame game, makes imaginary enemies, and then incarcerates, abuses and kills them.

And still, it never works.

Any 'government' is a socialist construct PERIOD!

Nope. Any government is a "social" construct. That does not make it Socialist.

Again, you don't know what most people think Socialism is. You're using a definition that's unique to Scott. You didn't like my last website, so let me give you one that's suitably "neutral": here's Webster:

Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Definition 3, we can set aside, because it treats Socialism as a mere stepping-stone to full blown Communism: and I'm guessing you don't want to advocate for that. So that leaves us with definitions 1, and 2a and b.

Happy?

No, only when those like yourself GET in positions of power in those systems as I just mentioned.

See? That's exactly what Socialists always do. They find somebody else to blame. "The revolution has been betrayed from without and within," they cry, "that's why it has not succeeded yet." Then, "Kill the traitors," comes next.

You're just demonstrating the truth of my thesis, Scott. Socialism needs to hate. It needs enemies to blame. Because on its own, it's inevitably a failure.

Excuse me? Define this 'hate'.

Happily.

Did you not accuse me, or people like me, of being the cause of Socialism's perennial dysfunctionality? Well, I'm not. I never was. And people like me are not. They never were. Just as Hitler blamed the Jews for the failures of interbellum Germany, and just as Stalin blamed the kulaks for the failures of Red Communism in Russia, and just as the Maoists blamed the intellectuals for undermining their revolution, Socialism needs scapegoats. It always blames others for its failures.

But beware. Hitler and Stalin had purges. So did Mao. So did the Cubans, the North Koreans, and so on. Socialism eventually turns on its own people, accuses them of being insufficiently committed the the revolution, and purges them as well. The scapegoats die first, but the moderates die second. That's how it's happened in every case.

I couldn't even interpret what you said in this last quote given it is blurring the boundaries of whether you are speaking of the 'democratic view' versus the 'authoritarian' view.

They end up being identical. Always, a strongman takes over Socialism and uses it for his purposes. Then it's authoritarian. Want me to name them? How about Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Hoxha, Tito, Kim Jung, Mugabe, Maduro... There is always one, eventually.

See the pattern?

Are you then not implying that Jesus rode in on a royal horse (versus the donkey),

Why would that follow?

Karl Marx was a political philosopher primarily.

Well, by any fair assessment, he was a very evil man.

Biography is merely ad hominem, but the truth is that he never really actually knew any poor people. Or check that: he knew one, who was his housekeeper, whom he sexually abused, and by whom he had a child. Other than that, he never dirtied his hands with the masses. But the main source of his wickedness was the philosophy he espoused, which many have followed to the point of killing more human beings than for any other cause in human history. That's a pretty wicked thing to have on one's conscience.

why are you STEALING God's POWER to final judgement

I do no such thing....as if I even could. The final judgment is God's. But he also told us we could and should judge evil by what it does. In fact, did you know that there are far more commands in Scripture about things we are required to judge than about things we should not? It's true. We're instructed to judge all kinds of evil and avoid it.

But Final Judgment? You're right: that's nobody's but God's. I never said anything different.

I dare you to prove that you ACTUALLY believe by giving up all your wealth voluntarily and help others in ACTION.

And then use it to impress you? I think that would actually be very arrogant.

You seem to imagine me as a wealthy man, Scott; compared to the Developing World, perhaps I am. I'm certain you are, too, because I have seen how much of the world actually lives. In their eyes, I may be rich; but not by many standards. Suffice to say, I have responsibility before God to share whatever I have, regardless of how much that is: so do you.

If I boasted of what I do, you would not believe me. And if I boasted, I would be a fool to do so. So you are asking for information no man is entitled to ask from another, and should not expect to receive if he did.

[gaffo]

yes, Scott, let's talk about natural law/natural rights

here's what I've written about it in this forum, many times, across multiple threads...

-----

I am a natural rights libertarian, that is, I'm a moral realist

this means I believe there is a fact about the human individual from which extends a moral fact

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

as a natural rights libertarian, it's natural I should crave minarchy, a minimal night watchman affair...what follows could pass as the organizin' principles for such an affair...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

-----

liberty, as a function of ownness, is self-direction & self-responsibility

agree fully - you have understanding of nature law and liberty.



-----

for the record: I hired ORANGE MAN in '16, and tried to re-hire him this year, to wreck shit, plain & simple..

.

ok - now we know your mentality.

you are lazy.

easy to destray, hard to create.

so a a lazy you are all for 1789/1917 french rev/russian rev.............will all the bodybags to those revolutions. so instead of working to make the corrupt system better you are for burning the house down - with the ruslts we know of via histroy.

so now we know your character/"wisdom".

thanks for clarifying.

to reduce a gov to its minimum, you gotta begin by wreckin' it..

nope that result in 1917. your reform gov not remove it..............Henry the Anarchist!!!!!!!!!!!!! you'd fit right in in 1917.

.ORANGE MAN is not an authoritarian, he's an agent of chaos

He BOTH, his wish is to be a dictator but his constitution is too OCD to be organized enough to be one, so chaos is the result. and you are just a brainstem folower - you'd fit reich in in 1933.

you drank the kooliad years ago - you are the only survivor of the 900 i guess.

as I say, if you wanna know what a natural rights libertarian thinks, talk to him, not some drunk

ya Scott, if you want to understand Libertarianism talk to the koolaid drinking brainstem rump brownozer, don't bother talking to a drunk like me.

[gaffo]

Politics of any view doesn't matter when the nature of abuses come from a core drive of all animals to be selfish. I think a division regarding the 'fascism' in discussion is due to those who believe a system requires serving a unique special identity-class of people based most specifically on genetics and some presumed cultural association.

So regardless of our differences here, do you guys at least agree that the problem here is about those who believe in some 'racially' defined 'culture' to govern versus those who don't? The contentious differences of rights to what is or is not one's OWN is relevant here because of our capacity to pass on environmental benefits to those we have personal connection to most personally. As such, those who embrace the racialized governments are biased to passing on 'ownership' privileges to their own while passing on debt to the outside groups BASED on those identity beliefs. This 'strengthens the strain' of purity of those in power who have this racist preference by means of eliminating those who are NOT related to them genetically and culturally. THIS is the threat of 'fascism' for the majority, especially if you are NOT in their ancestral family group and cult.

we need to clarify our above here.

1. Fascism the term refers to 1920's Italy. that state was not racist.
2. Germany 10 yrs later became the posterboy of fascism, and was also racist.
3. Fascism = Authorititarinism........so any state that is authoritarian is fascist. from Japan in ww2 to Saudi, Iran , north korea Arabia today.........BTW i would include China as a fascist state today..............and Russia who backslide in the 90's back to it via their former soviet days.

-----------------------------

per ME:

as a Libertarian, i affirm the concept of a government that rule by concent of the governed - so if most Suadis affirm their own represion - it legal. (i do not think they do - i think maybe 1/3 do - the rest are just living under it - just talking principle her.





no fan of Saudi Arabia, its a Religious Fasicist state, but not a racist one - unlike egerman prior - any sauid regardless of their race or religion can convert to islam and b affored more rights (not full rights for the gov does not affirm rights - just saying that gov is not racist and allows cconversion).

Germany realy sucked because if the were a gypsie or jew - after 41 and rconverted to christainity - you still go to the oven.

so ya EVEN the Sauidi gov is better than the Germany of ww2. - no doubt in my mind on that./

[gaffo]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

correct.

Fascism is left-right blind.

only about oppression and power over the people.

[gaffo]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

Which version of socialism, each of which was critically different both in ideology and circumstance, not to mention the psychology of the people, place, time?

history:

Stalin in uetraine in 1930's and Moe in the 60's.

30? million dead.............mostly via Moe.


lets not leave out Pol Pot the Buddist....3 mill or so in the 70's.

[gaffo]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.

Hmmm. You don't even know what 'socialism' is. "Socialism" to me is "any system devoted to society as a whole"...versus a system that is selfishly derived by dictators or a special subset of the privileged classes only. A 'government' is NOT a private club, regardless of those who attempt and HAVE succeeded to do this in even "Socialist" labeled governments. Your own attitude IS why those 'socialist' systems fail: you MAKE them fail by embedding your own kind of thinkers IN those systems to destroy them with the very 'evil' that you claim to be on the opposite side of with your feined religiosity. I mean, government becomes a 'commodity' to exploit by conservatives. So if you can't have your dictatorship, you will do whatever it takes to destroy systems run by the people. You are the ones who would notice the opportunity of robbing a store during a protest so that you both PROFIT from the theft AND make it appear as though it were the crowd protesting. Win-win, right?

Christianity was a 'socialist' movement too. But even that has been distorted by those like your own who turn it on its head to favor the Caesars who have power and wealth and respect of those who nod at his fashionable taste in clothes. You disrespect the poor by diminishing their power-of-vote to each person per vote because you think the wealthier deserve MORE value per vote instead. That's anti-social and destructive of ANY system of government or church!

Emanual has a point - i think he is biased agenst Solcialism (I'm fine wiht it myself), but his knowledge of histroy is sound, the Chinese and Russians perverted socializism an dkilled millions.

if you have a beeff - take it up with Stalin and Moe.

[Immanuel Can]

Fascism is left-right blind.

No, it's not. It's Socialist. National Socialist. That's what Nazi means.

So it's Leftist.