special interests in socialism

[RCSaunders]

This thread in under the category, "Political Philosophy." In that context, "government," means an agency with the exclusive perogative of using coercive force within geographical area.

Exclusive perogative?

Have you been paying attention to human history for the last.... ever? Humans frequently resort to using coercive force - extremists, terrorists, rioters, political oppositions.

When two "exclusive perogatives" argue over whose exclusivity is more exclusive within a geographic area we call it "war". Nobody has a monopoly on violence because violence is democratized.

So... this "exclusivity" you speak of. How exactly is it bestowed or attained?

It isn't. It's a lie, claimed by governments, and believed by most of those who believe in government or political solutions.

It's how a government would describe itself if it were honest, so don't hold your breath waiting for it.

[Skepdick]

It isn't. It's a lie, claimed by governments, and believed by most of those who believe in government or political solutions.

It's how a government would describe itself if it were honest, so don't hold your breath waiting for it.

Huh?!? That's how YOU described governments. You used the word "exclusive" in your own definition!

Did somebody use coercive force to make you write it?

[gaffo]

History most definitely shows us that Socialism causes a whole lot more. But you seem strangely unconcerned about the over 100 million dead bodies it has piled up in the last century.

1/2 that.

No, actually, probably more.

my numbers are accurate.

The 100 million is a conservative estimate, not an excessive one. But let's not bother to debate that. Even were it half, as you propose, it would be a total condemnation of Socialism, would it not?

no, because what is evil is any gov - from left to right - that kill folks in the name of security of the nation.

there is nothing inherently evil about socialism, just governments.

power corrupts so gov by nature is corrupt, the best hope is a gov ruled by an ingormed governed, so a gov that governed by consent of the governed - be it left or right.

I mean, to kill 50 million is surely enough. Nothing else has come close to doing that.

agreed, not into muber games.

just correcting your numbers.

all governments that do not rule via consent of their governed are illegal in my mind - be they left or right.

Rightwing Germans

You mean "National Socialists," or NAZIs. They were Leftists, and Socialists by creed.[/quote]


Socialist in lable, but rightist in mindset -= per the Nationalist mindset.

surely you know this, i'm not going to play the name game, Soviet Union was Socialist too - i.e. they were, the Germans were not in any way beyond their lable, they were rightist Nationalist per their actions.

if you wish to play the body count game,

Game? Oh, my friend, it's no game.

When an ideology kills so many people, that's the most serious kind of condemnation. And the thing we've got to fear is the folly that led so many people to try the horrible Socialist experiment over, and over, and over again, despite how many people it always kills. And now, there are actually people talking about trying it again in various parts of the Western world.

It always makes me marvel at their arrogance. I mean, they've seen that the Germans, the Russians, The Chinese, the Cubans, the Venezuealans, the Zimbabweans, the Cambodians, the Bulgarians and Hungarians and Albanians, and many more who have tried it...and in every single case, the bodies have stacked up. And yet, today's people must think the Germans, the Cambodians, the Albanians, the Cubans and so on were all stupid -- because they believe that if THEY had been in charge of Socialism, the bodies would not have piled up at all. They actually think they are much smarter than the many millions who tried Socialism and failed. What arrogance! And what a price we will pay if they get to try their horrid experiment again.

Game? Oh, that's no game, I assure you. Not when the stakes are so high.

get over your bias per "socialism" - all i know is Trickdown does not work "so tax the rich more" is fine by me.

and that only a gov that rule via the consent of the governed is legal, all other goverments are illegal.


thanks for reply and carry on Sir. (BTW i know you are Canadian since you knew about the 2 islands off shore of New Fundland, which most Canadians do not know (and only French Canadians - more so Frence on the islands do - might know more then the general Canadian would. as an american i did not even know about those 2 islands until a youtube documentary about them 5 yrs - 99.9 plus americans have no clue of them - canadians at most would be 95, all others outside of residents of those 2 islands would be zero,

so - assuming you are not a French resident of those 2 islands, and knowing you are not an american via your own words, means you are a Cannuck.

with more historical knowledge than 90-percent of both americans and canadians.

hows the weather in Toronto?

[Belinda]

Gaffo wrote:

power corrupts so gov by nature is corrupt, the best hope is a gov ruled by an ingormed governed, so a gov that governed by consent of the governed - be it left or right.

Black and white thinking; all governments are corrupt. Some are relatively not corrupt at all.

Police states and media hegemony are corrupt fair to say.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=478017 time=1604227510 user_id=12709]
Gaffo wrote:

[quote]power corrupts so gov by nature is corrupt, the best hope is a gov ruled by an ingormed governed, so a gov that governed by consent of the governed - be it left or right.[/quote]

Black and white thinking; all governments are corrupt. Some are relatively not corrupt at all.

Police states and media hegemony are corrupt fair to say.
[/quote]

Power only corrupts the corruptible, and everyone is not corruptible, which is why some have died refusing and many of us avoid politics entirely. Power does, however, attract the corruptible, which is why libertarian efficiency and distributed/delegated power is needed as a check against it.

[Immanuel Can]

there is nothing inherently evil about socialism, just governments.

Let's say we believe that. But Socialism requires the biggest government possible, one that manages all aspects of life and economy. So you've just given total power to the evil, if you opt for Socialism.

I mean, to kill 50 million is surely enough. Nothing else has come close to doing that.

agreed, not into muber games.

I think the numbers are important, especially when they show so clearly how homicidal Socialist regimes have invariably been. We cannot afford not to be aware of its history.

all governments that do not rule via consent of their governed are illegal in my mind - be they left or right.

I don't disagree, so far as that goes. But Socialism gives greatest range of action to just that type of government.

Rightwing Germans

You mean "National Socialists," or NAZIs. They were Leftists, and Socialists by creed.

Socialist in lable, but rightist in mindset -= per the Nationalist mindset.

Nationalism and Socialism are compatible. One does not counteract the other, as Hitler showed. And there's nothing specifically "right-wing" about Nationalism.

get over your bias per "socialism"

Heh. I have no "bias" about it. I see it clearly, and I judge it only by its actions. I wish others would do the same.

In fact, history has been its judge. That's why modern Socialists never want you to talk about that. It's a disgraceful legacy of failure and murder, and they want you to believe that if THEY were in charge, THEY would do better.

No thanks.

hows the weather in Toronto?

You should ask them.

How's the weather where you are?

[Immanuel Can]

Power only corrupts the corruptible, and everyone is not corruptible...

There it is!

The naivete, I mean. Now you'll tell us, "Yes, there have been BAD Socialist governments, but THIS one will be good, because the people in charge this time are full of virtue and light, and cannot possibly be corrupted, the way every previous Socialist regime was corrupted...

And then the bodies will pile up.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=478056 time=1604243290 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478029 time=1604237941 user_id=15238]
Power only corrupts the corruptible, and everyone is not corruptible... [/quote]
There it is! :D

The naivete, I mean. Now you'll tell us, "Yes, there have been BAD Socialist governments, but THIS one will be good, because the people in charge this time are full of virtue and light, and cannot possibly be corrupted, the way every previous Socialist regime was corrupted...

And then the bodies will pile up.
[/quote]

The version will be as good as the checks and balances it brings with it, and the rationality of it's core ideology, including how to change. And it will be as bad as the interferences.

[Immanuel Can]

The version will be as good as the checks and balances it brings with it, and the rationality of it's core ideology, including how to change. And it will be as bad as the interferences.

Socialism has no "checks and balances": the State government rules all. It has no "rationality," because "reason" doesn't especially conduce to it. It's has no interest in "change " of its own administration, so it's really a very hidebound system. However, it does have, and is, an ideology. That's true.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=478067 time=1604245480 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478059 time=1604243581 user_id=15238]
The version will be as good as the checks and balances it brings with it, and the rationality of it's core ideology, including how to change. And it will be as bad as the interferences.
[/quote]
Socialism has no "checks and balances": the State government rules all. It has no "rationality," because "reason" doesn't especially conduce to it. It's has no interest in "change " of its own administration, so it's really a very hidebound system. However, it does have, and is, an ideology. That's true.
[/quote]

I agree, and that's why most screeds against it are flawed. Socialism is an intent, not a method. Every Version of socialism has a method in order to become practicable. I don't know if any version of socialism, or most any ism, that includes how to accommodate change.

[Immanuel Can]

Socialism is an intent, not a method.

Ummm...no. It's a "method," alright. What it requires is very definite and prescribed by definition.

[gaffo]

agreed, not into muber games.

I think the numbers are important, especially when they show so clearly how homicidal Socialist regimes have invariably been. We cannot afford not to be aware of its history.[/quote]

numbers do matter, and i stated yours were wrong by factor of 2 in prior post weeks ago. i affirm historical accuracy.

all governments that do not rule via consent of their governed are illegal in my mind - be they left or right.

I don't disagree, so far as that goes. But Socialism gives greatest range of action to just that type of government.


i agreed, since gov power is greater under socialism then whatever else in theory.

but in the real world is this true?

do you know of Argie history, the thousands of "leftists" thown out of helicopters, other thousands mudered in soccer fields in the 70's.

All under a "weak" (per your view - "only socialist gov are strong"..............and if so, how did a weak Reichwing Argie gov manage to murders all those "leftists" civilians in the 70's?

I will give you another example, Aphganstan, the taliban killed 10-20 thousands of her civilans from 1990-2000, all under an non socialist gov, so weak by your mandate.

yet not so weak as not to kill those 20,000.

You mean "National Socialists," or NAZIs. They were Leftists, and Socialists by creed.

Socialist in lable, but rightist in mindset -= per the Nationalist mindset.

Nationalism and Socialism are compatible. One does not counteract the other, as Hitler showed. And there's nothing specifically "right-wing" about Nationalism.

there are exceptions to all rules, and germany was one.

in general Nationalism is Right (tribal - my tribe is better than yours), and socialism (Communism more apt) is Stateless.

get over your bias per "socialism"

Heh. I have no "bias" about it. I see it clearly, and I judge it only by its actions. I wish others would do the same.

hows the weather in Toronto?

You should ask them.

wink back

How's the weather where you are?

last week - shitty and cold, like your land, but now warmer (thats to warm winds from Mexico).

[gaffo]

Gaffo wrote:

power corrupts so gov by nature is corrupt, the best hope is a gov ruled by an ingormed governed, so a gov that governed by consent of the governed - be it left or right.

Black and white thinking; all governments are corrupt. Some are relatively not corrupt at all.

Police states and media hegemony are corrupt fair to say.

I agree, and why i affirm an educated public and a gov that represents them.

i am a liberal libartarian.

the best gov is corrupt to some degree - due to power corrupts - only that said ideal gov is valid as representative of the people and not more corrupt than valid - as long as it is formed from an informed governed.

[gaffo]

Power only corrupts the corruptible, and everyone is not corruptible,

we are all corruptable, its just a matter of knowing one's weakness, and applying the pressure to "sell out"

there are the 7 sins.

to take your pick. each of us have our personal god toward one of the seven, all one needs to do is find out which of the seven is your god, than apply pressure to brake the person to sellout to their god.


Envy would be my weakest issue, so a smart "spirit breaker" would use my Envy of others more forunate them me, against me, to eventually break and sellout my ethics/convictions.

this is all interigator 101 stuff BTW.

which is why some have died refusing and many of us avoid politics entirely. Power does, however, attract the corruptible, which is why libertarian efficiency and distributed/delegated power is needed as a check against it.

?? your english was hard to follow, i am a Libartarian - have been since 1988, kindly reword so i can reply to your above.

honestly interested.

[gaffo]

The version will be as good as the checks and balances it brings with it, and the rationality of it's core ideology

precisely.