the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[Belinda]

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.

It's a literary habit of mine to be too concise for what I have to say."Nice" was probably not the best word to choose.

[Belinda]

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.

At a time of pandemic you ask what the imperative of nature is !
I would not vote for a dictatorship. You seem unable to understand socialists are not the same as dictators . I don't know what nationality you are but here in the UK we have had pretty good socialist regimes and politicians, but you seem to confuse socialism and totalitarianism.

I applaud your charitable work. If by chance it is Christian Aid I especially trust this charity for its efficient and honest use of funds. However there are not enough charitable individuals like yourself to fill the needs.
Envy is psychologically and usually efficiently counter productive whenever it occurs. I accept you don't suffer from envy.Neither do I.

[Immanuel Can]

At a time of pandemic you ask what the imperative of nature is !

Of course. It's not self-evident, and it's controversial what it might be.

What do you think it is?

You seem unable to understand socialists are not the same as dictators .

In every single case where Socialism has become the dominant economic model, dictatorship has followed. So while they're not the same, the former hoes the ground and prepares the way for the latter.

Did you never ask yourself why Cuba got Castro, Venezuela got Maduro, Zimbabwe got Mugabe, Russia got Stalin, China got Mao, North Korea got the Kim Jongs, Romania got Ceacescu, Albania got Hoxta...and so on? Heck, even why France got Robespierre? All of them were nominally Socialists, and inherited their power thence.

I don't know what nationality you are but here in the UK we have had pretty good socialist regimes...

Heh. They nearly completely destroyed your economy during my lifetime. Don't tell me how wonderful they were. And they managed that merely by how bad their policies were...they were still in a constitutional monarchy. Imagine how bad they'd have been if they'd been let loose?

I applaud your charitable work. If by chance it is Christian Aid I especially trust this charity for its efficient and honest use of funds. However there are not enough charitable individuals like yourself to fill the needs.

My wife's the one who deserves any applause, actually. But she neither looks for that, nor wants it.

I accept you don't suffer from envy. Neither do I.

I'm human, so I suffer from it from time to time...until I wake up and realize it's the wrong attitude. Being envious of others has never added any good thing to anyone's life. So any "revolution" that employs or depends on it is corrupt from the roots up. I'm glad to hear you don't have to deal with it.

But Socialism simply wouldn't get by without it. For you are quite right about human nature: there are not enough persons of a charitable disposition and goodwill to make any "voluntary sharing" type system work. So the good people are quickly overwhelmed by the jealous ones, whom they thought had been their allies, but who were actually as selfish as the day is long. And then greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow.

That's how Socialism always fails. It doesn't have a realistic view of human nature.

[Belinda]

At a time of pandemic you ask what the imperative of nature is !

Of course. It's not self-evident, and it's controversial what it might be.

What do you think it is?

You seem unable to understand socialists are not the same as dictators .

In every single case where Socialism has become the dominant economic model, dictatorship has followed. So while they're not the same, the former hoes the ground and prepares the way for the latter.

Did you never ask yourself why Cuba got Castro, Venezuela got Maduro, Zimbabwe got Mugabe, Russia got Stalin, China got Mao, North Korea got the Kim Jongs, Romania got Ceacescu, Albania got Hoxta...and so on? Heck, even why France got Robespierre? All of them were nominally Socialists, and inherited their power thence.

I don't know what nationality you are but here in the UK we have had pretty good socialist regimes...

Heh. They nearly completely destroyed your economy during my lifetime. Don't tell me how wonderful they were. And they managed that merely by how bad their policies were...they were still in a constitutional monarchy. Imagine how bad they'd have been if they'd been let loose?

I applaud your charitable work. If by chance it is Christian Aid I especially trust this charity for its efficient and honest use of funds. However there are not enough charitable individuals like yourself to fill the needs.

My wife's the one who deserves any applause, actually. But she neither looks for that, nor wants it.

I accept you don't suffer from envy. Neither do I.

I'm human, so I suffer from it from time to time...until I wake up and realize it's the wrong attitude. Being envious of others has never added any good thing to anyone's life. So any "revolution" that employs or depends on it is corrupt from the roots up. I'm glad to hear you don't have to deal with it.

But Socialism simply wouldn't get by without it. For you are quite right about human nature: there are not enough persons of a charitable disposition and goodwill to make any "voluntary sharing" type system work. So the good people are quickly overwhelmed by the jealous ones, whom they thought had been their allies, but who were actually as selfish as the day is long. And then greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow.

That's how Socialism always fails. It doesn't have a realistic view of human nature.

But it is precisely the political left who have the more realistic i.e. pessimistic view of human nature. The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.You wife obviously is exceptional.
"greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow."
are prevented by democracy. Unfortunately with democracy you get people like Trump in charge . This is why universal high level education matters so much.

Jesus was an educator, if you will allow the anachronistic term. He taught by way of stories that are definite narratives with important human themes, the content of which was suited to the interest of the people Jesus was teaching. There is not one of those themes that endorses capital and self seeking. Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .

[henry quirk]

The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.

good lord

'you will not share so you will be made to share'

slaver


Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .

slavery of 49% by 51%

[RCSaunders]

Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .

slavery of 49% by 51%

Exactly!

[Immanuel Can]

But it is precisely the political left who have the more realistic i.e. pessimistic view of human nature. The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.You wife obviously is exceptional.

Oh, I'm certain that's not true. The "more realistic" comment, I mean.

The Left is willing to take away other people's property and redistribute it to themselves, that's for sure; but they do it in the most naive way. They actually think that if the "equalize" things, then people will behave well. They think that the problems with society are a product of society itself -- they never really think that society was created by THEM and took the form that human nature itself tends to take. They actually think they are of some higher and better stock than other human beings, seeing as they are so devoted to equality; and that they alone can be trusted to redistribute fairly. They think that their ideology, Socialism, will not lead to an opportunity for totalitarianism, no matter how many times they see that cycle repeated. They think instead, that the last person to try Socialism "did it wrong -- that wasn't 'real' Socialism -- and that if THEY had a chance to do it, it would all come out right, because THEY are so much better than those other Socialists....

In other words, the last human nature that they have any skepticism about is their own. They are the most naive and self-trusting, the least self-aware of all people. Their view of general human nature is totally polyannish, totally uncritical, even while their view of conservatives is totally cynical.

At least conservatives, despite their faults, advocate for limited or minimal government with checks-and-balances. So even if you disagree with them, you will be safer from the excesses of human nature in a conservative polity. But Leftists think the government should be so big as to be in charge of all important functions -- education, medicine, economics, labour, consumption, arts, the media, and even personal expression -- and that controls and limitations on government power are just impediments to Utopia. And they think human nature is so trustworthy that their "big government" will never turn abusive.

One wonders where they think they're going to get these wonderful, sinless people who are going to populate their ideal society.

"greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow."
are prevented by democracy.

Not in any of the Socialist places in history. They all kept using the word "democratic," or "people's republic," while being totalitarian.

Unfortunately with democracy you get people like Trump in charge . This is why universal high level education matters so much.

Heh. Higher education, unfortunately, is not security against stupidity. There are more Leftists in universities per capita than anywhere else. Tenure, an elitist environment, and distance from real life has the unfortunate side-effect of people who believe their own ideas without testing them. And because they've been told they're "smart," they don't think critiques from any "mere mortals" can really touch them, or should be taken seriously. Only their own peers really count, to them. There are exceptions, of course; but statistically, and especially in faculties like the Humanities, conservative scholars are as rare as hen's teeth, and they are marginalized by the vast hordes of Leftist believers.

Jesus was an educator, if you will allow the anachronistic term.

True in a general way. I wouldn't think that was a fair summary of what He really is, though.

Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .

I agree. So why should we let the Socialists eliminate it, would be my question. I know they speak about "Democratic Socialism," but that's as sensible an idea as Free Totalitarianism, as history has everywhere shown. And, as I say, it's unbelievably naive about human nature.

Besides -- who told them the current "distribution" was unfair? Perhaps it is; but it's not just obvious that income inequality is unfair, if people are not all doing the same jobs, with the same risks, for the same amount of time, and to the same level. Inequality might be exactly the most just outcome, if some people are working, or ingenious, or clever, or industrious, or risk-positive, or fortunate, and others are not. And equality-of-outcome can only be achieved through force and suppression of those traits.

[Belinda]

At a time of pandemic you ask what the imperative of nature is !

Of course. It's not self-evident, and it's controversial what it might be.

What do you think it is?

You seem unable to understand socialists are not the same as dictators .

In every single case where Socialism has become the dominant economic model, dictatorship has followed. So while they're not the same, the former hoes the ground and prepares the way for the latter.

Did you never ask yourself why Cuba got Castro, Venezuela got Maduro, Zimbabwe got Mugabe, Russia got Stalin, China got Mao, North Korea got the Kim Jongs, Romania got Ceacescu, Albania got Hoxta...and so on? Heck, even why France got Robespierre? All of them were nominally Socialists, and inherited their power thence.

I don't know what nationality you are but here in the UK we have had pretty good socialist regimes...

Heh. They nearly completely destroyed your economy during my lifetime. Don't tell me how wonderful they were. And they managed that merely by how bad their policies were...they were still in a constitutional monarchy. Imagine how bad they'd have been if they'd been let loose?

I applaud your charitable work. If by chance it is Christian Aid I especially trust this charity for its efficient and honest use of funds. However there are not enough charitable individuals like yourself to fill the needs.

My wife's the one who deserves any applause, actually. But she neither looks for that, nor wants it.

I accept you don't suffer from envy. Neither do I.

I'm human, so I suffer from it from time to time...until I wake up and realize it's the wrong attitude. Being envious of others has never added any good thing to anyone's life. So any "revolution" that employs or depends on it is corrupt from the roots up. I'm glad to hear you don't have to deal with it.

But Socialism simply wouldn't get by without it. For you are quite right about human nature: there are not enough persons of a charitable disposition and goodwill to make any "voluntary sharing" type system work. So the good people are quickly overwhelmed by the jealous ones, whom they thought had been their allies, but who were actually as selfish as the day is long. And then greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow.

That's how Socialism always fails. It doesn't have a realistic view of human nature.

But it is precisely the political left who have the more realistic i.e. pessimistic view of human nature. The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.You wife obviously is exceptional.
"greed, shortages, power grabs, denunciations, "cleansings," gulags, "re-education" camps, executions, disappearances, secret police and dictators follow."
are prevented by democracy. Unfortunately with democracy you get people like Trump in charge . This is why universal high level education matters so much.

Jesus was an educator, if you will allow the anachronistic term. He taught by way of stories that are definite narratives with important human themes, the content of which was suited to the interest of the people Jesus was teaching. There is not one of those themes that endorses capital and self seeking. Democracy is the least bad political response to unfair distribution .

Immanuel, the term 'socialism' does not mean to you what it means to me. Remember if you will that you yourself are not the arbiter of what a word means.

[henry quirk]

the term 'socialism' does not mean to you what it means to me

a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism

being nice to people

slavery

a system that is said to elevate man while it grinds him into the dirt

suicide

one of the above (the damned lie) is not like the others

[RCSaunders]

... the term 'socialism' does not mean to you what it means to me.

You've already said what it means to you:

The political left view is human nature is such that without coercion men will not be sufficiently generous or even sufficiently cooperative.

If others do not choose to be what you regard as, "sufficiently generous," or, "sufficiently cooperative," they must be forced to conform to your socialist ideal.

Of course you never explain how, "sufficiently generous," is calculated or who decides if someone is being sufficiently generous or exactly who one must cooperate with to do what, or who decides that. But I'm sure whatever, "sufficiently generous," and, "sufficiently cooperative," are supposed to be, you know exactly what they are, and only those who agree with that have the right social views, and you would have no objection to forcing those who do not have your views to conform to your righteous ideology.

And you probably cannot imagine why anyone would object to having all the Belindas of the world attempting to run their lives for them.

[henry quirk]

Of course you never explain how, "sufficiently generous," is calculated or who decides if someone is being sufficiently generous or exactly who one must cooperate with to do what, or who decides that.

who cares who it is?

Solomon hisself could come flittin' down from Heaven Above with all the details figured and it wouldn't matter

it ain't his call, any more than it's B's call, what anyone does with his resources

anyone claimin' otherwise is a slaver at heart

[surreptitious57]

Observe the idealists insisting that their utopia is the best for everyone else

Constitutional Democracy is the pragmatic system we have today which mitigates the conflict resolution when their utopian dreams clash

Like any system it favours the most powerful so there is an inbuilt inequality symptomatic of human nature
Every human system is hierarchical by default but they can always be improved upon even if rather slowly

Systems are always in a constant state of evolution so do not presume that what exists now is the best there will ever be
Democracy is a relatively new phenomenon but the democracy of yesteryear is not the same as the democracy of today

The world is constantly changing and generally for the better and that is something that must and should continue
Any point in time is qualitatively better than any other point in the relative past and this is just as true for today

Utopia does not exist but eternal improvement both individually and collectively is entirely possible and is actually how society evolves
Constitutional democracy is probably the most practical system there is but it can always be made better even if only incrementally so

[Lacewing]

Like any system it favours the most powerful so there is an inbuilt inequality symptomatic of human nature
Every human system is hierarchical by default but they can always be improved upon even if rather slowly

Systems are always in a constant state of evolution so do not presume that what exists now is the best there will ever be
Democracy is a relatively new phenomenon but the democracy of yesteryear is not the same as the democracy of today

The world is constantly changing and generally for the better and that is something that must and should continue
Any point in time is qualitatively better than any other point in the relative past and this is just as true for today

Utopia does not exist but eternal improvement both individually and collectively is entirely possible and is actually how society evolves
Constitutional democracy is probably the most practical system there is but it can always be made better even if only incrementally so

Well said!

I agree... which is why I think philosophy can evolve for the better too. Clinging to beliefs and philosophies of the past goes against nature's/humankind's evolvement.

That is not to say that there's no value from reflecting on the past. There can be value in reflecting on many things past and present, to continually move/create beyond that. Letting go of "small knowns", in order to be open to and capable of more expansive possibilities.

[commonsense]

So if either socialism or democracy were described as idealism masquerading as pragmatism, isn’t the best balance a pendulum between the two?

Or should the scales be tipped in favor of whichever more of the population prefers?

Or could minarchy truly be the best balance?

(Socialism and democracy are not claimed to be some kind of dichotomy here. They, and minarchy, were put forth earlier in this thread as solutions to the balance problem.)

[RCSaunders]

Of course you never explain how, "sufficiently generous," is calculated or who decides if someone is being sufficiently generous or exactly who one must cooperate with to do what, or who decides that.

who cares who it is?

Apparently you do. What do you think you're voting for when you vote. You're voting for who will decide how much of your money will taken from you and whom it will be given to. Suffrage is just the government's scam to convince the slaves, err citizens, that they are having a say in how the government is run, because they get to choose their latest masters.

It's still slavery, Henry, even when you get to vote for your master, and every time you vote you are giving your assent to the system.