the limits of fascism

[henry quirk]

>you don't seem to understand Bastiat's point: free men require no regulators or legislators

That idea is 1% right, 99% bullshit. Free men with knowledge, conscientiousness, and intelligence don't require regulators or legislators, except when they deal with issues of scale or with others who don't share those attributes. The whole reason we have governments is that "free men" of your kind are the ones who end up despotic, and all systems of power that do Not value at minimum the ensured protection of the least of the sentient beings under their control, and the equality of opportunity of all cognizant beings likewise, perpetuate themselves directly into evil.

no, the whole reason we have the current govs we're cursed with is becuz folks like yourself, so sure you know what's best, are willin' to, as I say, leash us all, for our own good

as for issues of scale: free men make do...they associate and cooperate, and they're capable of doin' so without gov oversight...I know it's disheartenin' to hear, but your kind are neither needed or wanted...your technocracy is rejected

I didn't say anything about technology, but that would be a good conversation, whether or not you mean the electronic variety.

Men are capable of governing themselves in every sense that does not require understanding scale. As soon as you start talking about large areas of land, viruses, weapons, then you have to have a state to manage and govern those things. Anti-statism is 0% pragmatic.

I didn't say jack about technology either...do you know what a technocrat is?

no, you don't need a state: you just need experts in those fields, the best of which are found in the private sector

the state is a cancer folks like yourself are in love with...central planning:

[henry quirk]

Anti-statism is 0% pragmatic.

there are some things not permissible between and among men, no matter how beneficial those things might be for the greater good

[Immanuel Can]

In order to overthrow an entrenched system you must have at minimum an unwarranted optimism bias,

That's what the Socialists absolutely count on to lead you along like a calf to slaughter: that you'll be full of optimism, unsuspicious when they tell you they're on your side, and full of belief that this time, it's going to work.

and when it works,

Never has, so far. Never will.

But if you think there's a difference between, say, the USSR or China doing Socialism, and the US or UK doing Socialism that will prevent the disaster that's followed every single time before, I'm ready to hear it -- along with the explanation of why you think everybody in Russia or China is a fool, and couldn't get Socialism right.

...every problem you're raising is either externally created

Heh. No, it's not.

It's a function of human nature. And you can't escape human nature.

The rights of individuals will inevitably be trampled by someone,

Not at all. We could stop trying to dominate each other. But we won't. So democracy is the best solution: well-defined individual rights, plus strict limits on governmental ability to interfere. That's as good as it's ever going to get.

There are successful socialist places

Name one.

There hasn't been one yet.

Then there are NO successful Socialist places.

It is possible to have better ideas than the current system allows for, even if you don't yet know how to enact them,

Of course. But Socialism isn't one of those ideas. It's been tried and tried, with a 100% disastrous failure rate.

Even if we fail 1000 times, revolution is preferable to letting things stagnant the way they are.

This is clearly not true. There are many, many situations that are better than revolution: peace, democracy, constitutional monarchy, as in the UK...even something as bad as laissez-faire capitalism is better than marching people to the gulag.

Any ideas that support not trying to upset the apple cart because you might break some eggs are morally and ethically bankrupt from their core.

The opposite is true. Any ideology that says we have to "break some eggs," like killing a few dissidents or stealing property from people who earned it rightfully, is clearly morally bankrupt.

There can be no defense of anti-socialism

I'm making one right now.

...the core of socialism is the good of all beings,

Oh, you poor sap. They are going to eat you for lunch.

>>...capitalism fails because the people in power have no fucking conscience...

>You really think that's true? None of them have a conscience? And Socialists do?

Some more, some less. [/quote]
Not a good answer. It only takes one Stalin, one Mao or one Pol Pot to turn your utopia to Hell.

The socialists have more of that fuzzy thing because they have moral maturity

Oh, please, please. You can't be serious. The guys who are sucking around for a comprehensive nanny state are "morally mature"? I'd hate to see what infantile dependency looks like, then.

The socialist has the good of everyone at the core of their thinking.

Stalin did, you mean? Or Mao? Castro? Pol Pot? Kim Jong? Maduro?

You're entirely correct in that it is a hard problem to figure out who should be in charge

Then you'd better not give big government power to people who should not be in charge. What sense does that make?

...the best-intentioned of us...

Lambs to the Socialist slaughter.

>You seem to think that the power of capitalist acquisition corrupts, but the power of Socialist leadership cannot corrupt. Can't you see how utterly absurd and woefully dangerous that supposition is?

Capitalism does not require any form of fairness, equity, equality, or justice.

Democracy does. Where have you been living? Capitalism is not an ideology, but merely an economic strategy democracies use. And even China has now discovered that, Socialist though it is, it will not survive without Red Capitalism.

That's another severe problem with Socialism: Socialists don't understand economics. They run out of money very fast.

Capitalism requires the idea of capital which is inherently destabilizing and unjust.

It's neither, actually. It just means that things have more value than the mere value of the labour involved. For example, a computer has more value than the pile of silicon and circuits it came from, and from the work it took to put it together. That surplus value generates wealth.

You have to judge ideologies from their root up.

I do. Socialism fails even in its roots. It doesn't understand human nature, or economics.

Socialism is the best world-view

Not if you judge it by what it has done. Then it's the worst by far.

>The only safeguard against this problem is not giving anyone too much power...

>... This is the wisdom of democracy: to have checks and balances, such as multiple parties, elections, limited terms, strict boundaries of mandate, the rule of law, separation of powers, restricted government mandates, and so on, to keep ALL people from becoming corrupt. But Socialism waves all these, gives all power to central planning, and just trusts that even with unrestrained power, its leaders will remain pure of heart.

>And every time, they don't.

We don't know that to be true

Yeah, we do. We've seen it every single time Socialism has been tried.

Someone must be in charge

Well, that's a half truth, but half false. "Somebody" or rather, a group of elected "somebodies" must be in charge for a limited term, with strictly circumscribed powers, sure. But that somebody, some Socialist despot or cabal of Socialists must have total governmental authority? God save us.

[Scott Mayers]

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.

What do you call what you are doing right now by blanketing the greater numbers of people as 'evil' if they get their way?

First of all, Scott, most people are not Socialists.

You are right, ....if we were to believe that YOUR definition of 'Socialist' as those PARTICULAR systems that have FAILED and to which you post-hoc ASSIGN the cause as due to the ARGUMENTS that were used to sell them to the public.

The question then becomes, assuming ONLY your presumed meaning of "Socialism", what are we to TRUST if NOT for something proposed that we agree to in principle? Are you not saying that we should NEVER TRUST anyone proposing a system defined to serve the whole in ANY way? Are you saying that if one dares to hear, "Would you like to see a world of equality among people that cares for one another?" that the question suffices to prove 'evil' because those using that question to formulate some proposed system to make that happen have failed?

Furthermore, when you malign the USE of the term, "Socialism", what terms do YOU use to define the systems that succeed other than as "Not Socialist" by YOUR description? That is, if socialism does succeed anywhere, would you just redefine that system as 'not Socialist' BY YOU as you have pointed out that most people don't like it? In other words, if and where the meaning socialist works, you'd just beg that the term is NOT the correct description because you ASSIGN the term to those systems that HAVE FAILED using that label somewhere in their title or BY outsiders who have labeled them such.

To me, if someone SELLS any idea with the intention of deceiving the listener, it doesn't REQUIRE the listener to be at fault. In your conservative-side view, however, you reverse this as "Buyer Beware" which IMPOSES upon the listener to ACCEPT that they are the ONLY ones at fault if they get fucked over for trusting someone's words. You are in principle asserting that we cannot trust anyone promising anything at all and so LET THIS BE THE CASE. Then HOW THE hell are we to even GAMBLE in the likes of anything YOUR side might propose? You intrinsically believe that it is the fault of the crowds to be decievable for listening to anyone using the term, "Socialism", as though the use of the term is "clearly" of YOUR SPECIFIED definition. But you wouldn't dare think it inappropriate for the concept of your side to intrinsically believe in TRICKING the consumer through as fair behavior because it PROFITS the one using speaking? You would penalize the crowds for listening to the liar! And to me, this is precisely what makes your 'side' culpuable FOR being JUST the KIND of people who would LIE to the public in order to MAKE any system that appeals FAIL.

Trump summed it up when he commented why he USES loopholes in the system to behave in ways that are 'legal' but intentional deceptive practices: if the Democrats knew the potential of abuses, why did they NOT ban or fix those laws? So he is saying that IF there exists no rule to LIMIT abuses, then it is ALRIGHT to EXPLOIT those 'loopholes' for ones' selfish benefits.

He is representing YOUR side's intrinsic belief that it is alright to BE deceptive. So if YOU believe in that type of philosophy, YOU are NOT TO BE TRUSTED IN PRINCIPLE!

Secondly, it's not them that "get their way." If they knew what they were going to "get," then no sane person would want Socialism at all...it's a horror show when it plays out. Nobody wants gulags, executions, incarcerations, surveillance, a dead economy, suspicions everywhere...

Rather, most of those who support Socialism don't even really understand the implications and history of Socialism: they just think it means they can quit work and get free stuff, or that everybody will end up equal -- all things that have never happened in human history, and never will. But they're not "evil": they're just ignorant, naive, emotional, and often a little greedy as well.

So, the suckers are not at fault yet you believe in a system that permits exploiting 'free enterprise' whereby the ones who have POWER over others are exclusively those who have SELF-INTEREST in profiteering over others? If they are 'ignorant, naive, emotional, and often a little greedy" themselves, are these not MORE empowered to favor those who HAVE EXCLUSIVE POWER over others? Does it not suggest that the fault lies with all of humanity and that for those particularly empowered EXCLUSIVELY through arbitrary rule through their POWER of things represented by wealth are those instead who would abuse? Are you not justifying HOW abuse by humans occur out of self-interest regardless of any system?

Why is it somehow MORE 'greedy' for the poor person to want welfare supports by the public as a whole than to the specific family member of a rich parent to expect the same of their parent? The fact that ONE parent can offer their ONE child relief of hunger only makes that parent's decision just as flawed than for the MANY parents representative of society to offer ALL their children the same relief.

But those who DO really understand Socialism know very well how to manipulate these well-meaning naifs, and use them as fodder for their self-advancement. And that's how Socialism has played out in every case so far.

Correct. And they are NOT honest leaders who actually think IDENTICALLY to YOUR philosophy. They EXPLOIT 'loopholes' to GAIN CONTROL of such systems that initially offerred universal fairness as one in business might manipulate the means to take over a company using HIDDEN inside information to exploit profit.

For instance, you no doubt think it 'fair' that if you saw some poor and desperate guy needing money, that if he were asking you to pay for something he is pawning that is KNOWINGLY worth ten times the amount you are offering it is 'worth', you'd intentionally offer the least so that you can knowingly gain the difference when you turn around and sell it to another at 900% profit! That is, you think it fair to LIE to the prospect that it is "less" than the worth that the person may be even asking 90% of the value of his initial purchase (fair given it might be less than new) because you think it FAIR to ACT ON YOUR GREED due merely to a difference in position of power based on wealth differences minus any voluntary compassion!

Who are these 'socialists'? Are they the secret WEALTHIER (and thus most powerful) Cabul made up of ALL the rest of the population but pretending to be impoverished instead?

Absolutely. Look at the Davos group, for example, the Klaus Schwab people who are presently the world's biggest advocates of Socialism. They're a bunch of millionaires and billionaires. Now, if they were really Socialists, the first thing they would do is give away all their own money to the poor; but you see that that is not what they do. Instead, they're seeking to use their money and power to promote the ideology for others, while keeping their own fortunes and privileges intact.

Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." A rotten tree does not produce good fruit, or a good tree rotten fruit -- because the quality of a fruit tree is defined by its fruit. The Socialist tree is full of rotten actions, of bad fruit. So don't plant one. You can see what the Davos group is really up to by what they are actually doing.

Never heard of them. Are you one of them? Given they ARE a 'secret' as I asked, how do you KNOW unless they were not so 'secret' afterall? How do I know if you aren't just pretending to represent a competing 'secret' cabal of the same wealth class that just treats us all as 'pawns' in an agreed GAME, ...like "capitalism", to which you aren't necessarily their enemy and view the rest of us as game pieces to manipulate?

I don't know what your quote about fruit could mean in context here. It works possibly for those 'pawns' you hope to be intimidated for using Biblical quotes plus your interpretion. But it doesn't help me understand how you link "Socialism" to it. Just place "Capitalism" there instead, why not? Would that somehow make the argument any more valid?

I would be more trusting of your beliefs if YOU were NOT religious.

That's not the case, actually: I'm not "religious." But I am Christian. (There's a meaningful difference, but I won't argue it with you here.) However, your decision in that regard is nothing I can change, right? If you don't trust people of my kind, I can't fix that.

My definition of 'religion' implies that you trust SPECIFIC facts that are NOT KNOWABLE in principle. I'll wait until after I die to determine any religious claims. But I'll use your OWN declared religion's claim that God gave us 'free will' to assert that the fact that one holds to a religious belief, they are exercising their 'free will' to probably lie to entice others to behave in a way that PROFITS the PROPHET that you'd represent for the capacity to exploit. If the 'socialists' are evil for acts where they cannot hide their accountability for asserting themselves as 'athiests' (on your assumed meaning), then why are we to not be MORE skeptical of those proposing a system of beliefs that DRIVE their actions beyond the human capacities. Imagine how those 'atheist' leaders of those bad 'socialists' systems you mention actually turn themselves into Gods! To me, this suggests that the fault lies with the religious mindset and to those who manipulate others by EITHER imposing unaccountable supremacy via some religious being on Earth OR to the traditional religious beliefs of some God beyond Earth. Both are due to some form of 'religion'. And both are found in ALL political systems of abuse, regardless of labels.

Why are you embracing the belief that independent WILL should supercede the compassion of other's interests?

I'm not. You made that up. But the truth is that Socialism is not in anybody's interest, except the selfish interests of the Socialist elite. And if I have an interest here, it's in not seeing more people starved, killed and brutalized by Socialists.

I don't defend those systems you mentioned in the least. I defend the idea by the definition of 'socialism' MINUS the mere labeling of the system that the greedy people who exist anywhere would intentionally use to manipulate others. To assert a correspondence of the label to the meaning still does not remove the intent of the meaning that people understand. The common factor in ALL those systems of abuse relates to DESPERATATION, of which the example of the pawning above illustrates that you would believe is 'fair'. I don't. And I would NOT align myself to just ANY platform using the label. In my own country, I align to the left but cannot agree to the particular platforms that exist that assert themselves as "socialist" because their meanings often misplace the concern of the demos as 'groups' that are themselves OF the same kind of Right-wing groups indifferently.

In practice, if people are FORCED, as they are, to vote for one side or the other, they are nevertheless forced to pick the side that MOST represents themselves. As such, I'd still require voting for the Left where forced to because while they are still 'conservative' minded AND include the same powers of the rich regardless, the Left at least is more inclusive of more people AND, by platform, declare promises that LACK intentional deception. This is because of the same point I made to you about the numbers of people who could ALL have the same degree of 'evil' in them. For a similar reason you might argue for competition in ECONOMIC differences in the market place, the competition between SOCIAL ideas that the left argues for makes the overall effectiveness of the 'evil' among them to be REDUCED AS LONG AS MONOPOLIES are prevented. This is easier to accomplish with ideas over money because ideas are not 'monetary' and are 'free' for anyone to invest in. This makes the competition of the 'socialism' (my defintion) more easy to accept for its ability to permit ANYONE born into any condition qualified to participate in from initial conditions.

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

So, according to this belief, is there ANY POSSIBLE government ideal that identifies 'social' to "Socialism"?

Socialism uses the word "social" propagandistically. It calls itself what it does in order to deceive the naive. But one can see from every case of real-world Socialism in history, that it has never been in the actually interests of a society to be Socialist.

Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

Although I've answered this above, you are PROPOGATING a percentage of failure that has no proof. Even if we were to trust your percentage based on just which 'failures' you refer to, I've already pointed out that YOU are defining the "socialist" as those under the label and not the meaning AND diminishing the significance of the meaning itself as 'evil' by association. What then does it leave? You are arguing like this to me:

Given a localized household analogy, one sibling who gets all the benefits might be arguing with another sibling who gets none of the benefits of the parent's compassion and attention. The child who is given table scraps might say to the other,

"I too am equal as a sibling here. Why is it fair that you are getting treated better than I am?"

"It's not my fault. Dad is good to me as he is to you. You must just NOT be behaving as I do."

"I've tried to copy your style but given I am always hungry, any attempt burns my energy level so quick that even if I could understand what you say you DO to appeal to him, I come across worse the more I try. Hunger does that to you. It would be fairer if I was FIRST treated as an equal by having the same amount of essential benefits you do, like a full meal, rather than scraps left behind."

"Well you are arguing for 'socialism'. If dad had were to try to feed us all equal, I'd have less and though we'd be on an even level, my skills are what would be diminished for having less energy AND you would still not meet the level of approval that Dad has for me now. In fact, Dad would be depressed for the loss of his happiness if he were to adapt to 'socialism' because then he too would be losing. This would make him become grumpy and, as you know from our 'grumpy' neighbors who have tried such proposals, it ALWAYS led them to become MORE abusive to ALL of us, not less."

"So you are suggesting, brother, that I have to accept 'conserving' the present state with me feeling hungry and depressed because you think that the overall GAIN of happiness by our Dad is all that matters? You are suggesting this only because you are getting treated much better by default. Do you expect me to lie down and die because your comfort and Dad's happiness are more valid than my own?"

"Well, no. This should MOTIVATE you to try harder! Perhaps you just need a little more 'faith'?"

"Faith has not served me well in practice and you are also implying that I am at fault for presuming that I don't try hard enough. You in the meantime, can fuck up a little and might only miss a meal. But Dad doesn't pass that meal onto me; rather, he just cancels dinner altogether and I don't even get your scraps!"

"Look, anytime any of our neighbors have tried 'socialism', the parents turned out to lose their heads and end up STILL favoring somebody. In fact, the unfairness of it is that those parents tended to only favor a lower quality of life overall and while it improves the quality of the unwanted kids, it empowers those unwanted kids enough for them to just demand more and more until the system collapses. They ALL become greedy and this collapses the ability of the household to persist."

"But in those same households, they have more often than not come from overpopulated households by the fathers who initially preferred to be 'free' to have as many children they want to the point that those who get favored create a severe imbalance of fortune for the overall majority of the household regardless. And those systems came about ONLY when their kids FORCED their parents to comply to equal behavior making the less matured overall power of the household itself diminished in reasonable conduct. I am suggesting this here and now in our smaller household while we still have the fortune to be able to permit our Dad to feed us equally. Do you have any proof that such a trial could not work for us?"

"No. We can only look at the historical record of actual 'socialist' turned families regardless."

"But wait. Some families volunteer to treat their kids all equal from the start and they seem to prove this system possible."

"But they didn't have a 'socialist' revolt. So they are not techically 'socialist' and never have called themselves that."

"But why would they require labeling themselves as 'socialist' even if they are by definition of meaning, when they practice it voluntarily UNDER the present system? They don't need to CALL themselves 'socialist' even while they practice it AND those parents don't get fired from their jobs for the abuses they LACK by default. In contrast, those who have HAD to revolt, the parents tended to get fired and not rehired for the initiating problems that made other people notice the abuses in the first place. As such, they tended to both BECOME 'socialistic' by force of the majority of sickened children now running the house, the parents losing their capacity to support the household drops making it worse. As such, the only reason for the so-called 'failure' of those "socialist" families is due to waiting too long before they adopt that ideal. By then it is too late. You get the household RUN by the sick!"

"Well you are just proving what I just said, "Socialism" is 'evil'."

"What?!! I just explained to you why but you ignored that the meaning of it is not 'evil'; only the label associated with those families who have had to adopt it out of dire circumstances in formal capacity have become 'evil'. And aren't you the one who proposes the religious belief in NOT controlling birth rates that, for instance, might have helped curb families from even getting that big beforehand regardless of how they behave? Are you not the one presuming the parent to believe in 'free enterprise' competition based on 'genetic' status of those who are born with to be able to exploit their fortunes like yourself? Are you not implying that YOU have some right to benefit on the love exclusive of other siblings like myself as though your default benefit is just something that God himself has granted 'superior'?"

====

You are arrogantly picking your definitions

No, I gave you standard definitions, Scott. The last one was straight out of a dictionary. The one before was actually better, but you didn't like it.

You did not note that the defintion is a CLASS definition, not a SPECIFIC one. I did not disagree with it so much as to YOUR interpretation that it applies to those systems that use it in their label and, as I've just expressed by analogue to a family discussion, how you are misinterpreting the MEANING.

Do you think this is a clever conspiracy?

Absolutely. You can see that it is. Socialism is just a tool of those elites who want to seize power. It's always been that, in every case in history.

Although answered above, I need to point out how you conveniently dismissed "Christianity" as as example of 'socialism' in practice at its roots. I can be assured that NO example I put forth would suffice as a 'qualifiable' proof of success for "Socialism". In the fact that they also had not USED the terms in the past in the same way as the 1800s-on use of the label, you'd dismiss ANY example as 'socialist' by meaning. This PROVES you are selectively picking out the attrocities to FIT with what you WANT the term to be associated with and leave behind ONLY those systems that are totalitarian in meaning. If that was our ONLY choices, then fuck being concerned about ordered systems at all. And this is precisely what your camp is doing: attempting to destroy ANY means of governing that isn't ruled through totalitarian rulers who OWN us. And if you 'own' us as property, then technically, we'd still have no 'government' BY THE PEOPLE and no recourse to fight against you.

What about the concept of public schools and universities?

You're mistaking the idea of "government-managed" with the idea of Socialism. Many fundamentally democratic, capitalistic economies have elements run by the government; but it's a limited government, with specific roles circumscribed by law, and it's not allowed to take over the larger economy. In Socialism, the government runs everything, and there IS no private enterprise, no more capitalism. That's one of the reasons Socialism always fails so disastrously.

Nobody says the government can't run anything, except extreme Anarchists. But lots of people point out that it can't run everything, or even succeed in running many things efficiently and well.

You are attempting to presume the definition of "Communism" is essential to Socialism. Socialism doesn't REQUIRE absolutely NO 'ownership'. What CAN be done is to curb the capacity of excessive wealth. But your ideal of 'government' would tip the scales to favor the wealthy ONLY.

Education by the Right is towards PRIVATE religious forms UNLESS they can get a National Socialist form where they can impose religious and cultural laws that FAVOR the means to make all systems PRIVATELY run by the "Nation" of your special kind.

What is the likelihood that there exists NO person, like myself, who claim that 'socialism' is an ideal that government requires serving the SOCIETY

I think the likelihood is good that there are some. You've been one, up to this point, unless I miss my guess. But it's wrong. Comprehensive government inevitably ends up serving only the Socialist elites, and preying on the gullible, vulnerable masses. There's a 100% record of that.

Sounding like Trump again with your presumption of statistical facts just tossed out without meaning. (are you a Trump?)

The 'elites' you assert are still there and are CONSERVING in nature, regardless. I've expressed this and will stop responding to this given the PERFECT 100% that the 'conservatives' ARE as the 'elites' if there is only a system that fosters Right-wing ideals. You are just arguing for that 'anarchism' by deleting the forms that have actual means to FAVOR those without power. IF it were true that socialism leads to such attrocities, and IF the rest of the world agreed with you, as many are beginning to, we WILL end up in such a chaos of people being so untrusting of ANY system that they'd resort to complete annihilation.

Only your conservative side favors EXCLUSIVITY of control UP FRONT! You are favoring the default to NATURE as animals out in the wild and why I suggested to you to move out to the woods to prove that you can actually exist naked to 'compete' among the rest of the wild animals. Civilization is by definition an 'artificial' construct based upon attempting to go against our Native genetics to require struggling to survive day in and day out.

I accuse the nature of the 'greed' existing in all of us as at fault GENETICALLY. But while this nature EXISTS EVERYWHERE, your political view (conservative) believes in ENHANCING this power

No, it does not. It believes in realizing that greed exists, and so making sure that no greedy persons have so much power they can control everybody. That's why democracy has checks-and-balances, and limited terms of public office, and strict definitions of the rule-of-law...which are all instantly eliminated by Socialism, thus allowing the inherent greed of man to seize control of the machinery of government.

Scott, if people are, as we both agree, basically susceptible to greed, how is it that you believe the Socialist government won't be staffed by greedy people? Where are these "pure hearted" Socialist leaders you can trust to run every aspect of social life going to magically appear from? But if all humans are corruptible by greed, what sense does it make to give them an unchecked governmental system by which to exercise their greed?

Finally, to your comments on masculine/feminine, I don't actually believe any of that. The "patriarchy" is a myth, and doesn't hold up as a historical idea, even in a superficial way. Any real account of history shows that all of it is the combined product of men and women.

You missed the point of mentioning. I argued the differences as due to GENDER stereotypes BASED on the standards of SEX stereotypes. I know that the 50/50 division of politics is not actually divided by sex but by the qualities of distinction that come from the prior whole time of evolution that made sex differences possible in nature. Each person has the same 50/50 division, is what I am getting at and that I am saying that the Right-wing's conservation is about preserving the traditions based upon the old stereotypes that have been defined by many as "patriarchal", meaning from the 'father's' lead versus the "matriarchal" as the 'mother's'. It is perfectly descriptive of what our differences are where you favor the forms of politics that is more 'native' to our struggle to survive where the 'economy' of people matters. The modern 'progressive' ideal advances a more 'matriarchal' flavor in that it artificially places the 'social' aspect of our artificial world ahead of the literal hard features of nature's cruelty.

[I think I'm onto something here thanks to this debate, by the way. Even if you were to disagree, isn't this a good comparison at issue that could be a possible means of reconciling the differences of political tensions?]

I also appreciate the debate, Scott. And even if we don't end up agreeing, I respect your efforts to share your point of view. Maybe we can come to some solutions: but I think we'll find them in that middle ground I was talking about, not in either Anarchism or Socialism.

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?

You are blaming the GENERAL philosophy of "socialism" for the CAUSE that is due to that male-dominating factor...

No, I'm merely pointing out that 100% of the time, Socialism becomes that. If it happens that all the dominant leaders are male, it's only because males are always stronger and more aggressive than females. Women are capable of exactly the same sorts of cruelty, but tend to do their assassinating verbally rather than physically. Ask any woman if any other woman has every been unconscionably cruel to her. You'll find out it's universal.

Human nature is what it is. That's why whatever political system we choose must not give too much power to any of us.

Tell me, HOW does the idea of having compassionate services for the poor through taxing others turn into something about genocides and wars and crime?

I did that in my last message. I'll summarize again.

Socialism fails economically and socially immediately. It looks for scapegoats. Then it hates, incarcerates, persecutes and eliminates the scapegoats. Then it looks for more scapegoats. Then it eliminates the moderates, the differently-Soclialist and the other rivals for the agenda from its own ranks. Then it eats the flesh of ordinary people, seeking out "traitors," and "counterrevolutionaries" in the ordinary population. And it never stops until it finally collapses of its own insanity and cruelty.

That's how.

Why would that follow?

Feigning ignorance?

No: genuinely confused by the statement.

Now given what I just said above, I think you SHOULD be able to notice that the 'donkey' represented the weak secondary citizen

I would have never thought that was so at all. I understand the donkey to be a sort of small horse, not a "secondary citizen." I see no justification for your symbology there. Honestly, I think you're making it up.

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.

Wow....

Read a biography of Marx. Any reasonable biography of your own choosing. You'll see it's the simple truth.

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.

I was making a POINT

Well, you don't know me at all, personally. So you haven't the foggiest idea what I do or don't do, how much "wealth" I have, or what I do with it. So it's really not a very great way to "make a point."

FAITH IN FAITH

I have never, even once, advocated this concept -- for the poor, the rich, or anybody in between.

Sometimes, Scott, I think you are trying too hard to make me the spokesperson for some set of beliefs I have never had, but which you want to speak against anyway. You speak as if I'm an Anarchist, and I'm not. You speak as if I'm an elitist, and I'm not. You speak as if I'm a superstitious religionist, and I'm not. We might have a more productive conversation if you asked me what I do believe, before you clothe me with the rags of somebody else's ideology and then criticize that.

I don't mind answering for my own beliefs: but I have no need of, no interest in, defending the ideology of the man you sometimes seem to wrongly imagine me to be. So I have a suggestion: maybe ask me before you accuse me of being the person you might be supposing. It's more vexing than useful to have to work against a stack of imaginary projections in order to get to the truth.

Still, thanks for your thoughts.

I had to skip the rest because of repetition and since most of what I answered before this suffices for most of this. [Whatever I haven't responded to does not mean I accept but I am certain will be raised again to answer later.]

But thank you for the honest debating and your reflected respect in kind. I DO NOT think you are being intentionally deceptive but have to point out when or where you use certain arguments that suggest you would have to be in light of my arguments that leave out the options under consideration. I hope you (and others whom I hope don't skip our correspondence) enjoy what we have to debate here. For whatever the ideal approach to politics could be, these at least point out the problems embedded in politics itself regardless on all sides. We are still animals, as far as I'm concerned. And I'd like to see us preferentially become the 'gods' we dream up if only we could survive as a species long enough to do so.

I hope you and yours are well under this present pandemic and will look forward to another book to read and write here . I think we need more of you to at least be among the conservative side if we are to get past the abuses that I see occurring there.

Later.

[Immanuel Can]

YOUR definition of 'Socialist'

Hey, I gave you two common definitions. I'm sorry you don't like them, but they are what not just most folks but also people who know understand as Socialism.

Are you not saying that we should NEVER TRUST anyone proposing a system defined to serve the whole in ANY way?

Heh. Every political system claims, in some way, to be "serving the whole." That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not people are well "served" by being first robbed by their government and then by being reduced to infantile serfs of the new nanny state, as Socialism implies.

"Would you like to see a world of equality among people that cares for one another?"

Well, we can all join hands and sing Imagine. Unfortunately, that is not what human nature is like. Human nature at its best cares for other people; but it's very rarely at its best. More often, it cares for self first, then family, then tribe or friends, then nation, and finally, at long, distant last, for humanity outside of those spheres. And unfortunately, a great deal of human nature tends to the vicious, the exploitative, the opportunistic and the covetous.

Let me ask you this: if Capitalism is evil, as you say, and if it exploits people, or is uncaring, or all that...where did the desire originate that produced Capitalism in the first place? Did it fall from the clouds? But if you realize that people have, in their nature, that which tends toward exploitation, uncaring and all that, what kind of folly would prompt you to put total power in the hands of an all-pervasive Socialist government composed of men with a human nature like that?

what terms do YOU use to define the systems that succeed

Statistically, EVERY other form of government succeeds more that Socialism -- especially if you consider body count an important statistic in judging that. Even, say, a monarchy never killed anywhere near so many people as Socialist regimes have. But I have already said what I would advocate: democracy, with checks-and-balances on the power of government. For all its failings, that's the most functional arrangement we have, as Churchill noted.

To me, if someone SELLS any idea with the intention of deceiving the listener, it doesn't REQUIRE the listener to be at fault.

Are the many victims of Socialism "at fault" for not being more aware of their own best interests? Perhaps. Or perhaps they're just naive "lambs to the slaughter." I think the truth is probably a mix of those two.

In your conservative-side view, however, you reverse this as "Buyer Beware"

Absolutely. That's called "being an adult." People have to take responsibility for themselves. And there's no alternative. Do you think the Socialist regime won't come for you if you just believe and don't ask questions?

Sorry: in the matter of selecting a government, there are no excuses for naivete. And the naive generally get eaten.

Trump

Not my concern.

Secondly, it's not them that "get their way." If they knew what they were going to "get," then no sane person would want Socialism at all...it's a horror show when it plays out. Nobody wants gulags, executions, incarcerations, surveillance, a dead economy, suspicions everywhere...

Rather, most of those who support Socialism don't even really understand the implications and history of Socialism: they just think it means they can quit work and get free stuff, or that everybody will end up equal -- all things that have never happened in human history, and never will. But they're not "evil": they're just ignorant, naive, emotional, and often a little greedy as well.

So, the suckers are not at fault yet you believe in a system that permits exploiting 'free enterprise' whereby the ones who have POWER over others are exclusively those who have SELF-INTEREST in profiteering over others?

Well, honestly, Scott, I can see from comments like the above that you don't know what I believe. You just try to tell me, preferably in the most extreme and pejorative kinds of ways. And you're always wrong.

But those who DO really understand Socialism know very well how to manipulate these well-meaning naifs, and use them as fodder for their self-advancement. And that's how Socialism has played out in every case so far.

Correct. And they are NOT honest leaders who actually think IDENTICALLY to YOUR philosophy.

Let me get this straight: you think all the Socialist despots -- the Castros and Stalins and so on -- think like me? They're the Socialists!

C'mon, Scott... That's too, too funny...and highly ironic.

I guess that's why you will never see them coming, and why no Socialist naif ever seems to see them coming...They're not my lads -- if you sign on with the Socialists, they're yours.

Just where are you going to get this new collection of "enlightened," benevolent and sweetly caring leaders your utopia is going to be staffed by? Don't you get it? They're the wolves, and you're the sheep. And guess what the wolves always eat?

For instance, you no doubt think it 'fair...'

Stop, Scott. You have no idea what I think. You don't ever ask.

Who are these 'socialists'? Are they the secret WEALTHIER (and thus most powerful) Cabul made up of ALL the rest of the population but pretending to be impoverished instead?

Absolutely. Look at the Davos group, for example, the Klaus Schwab people who are presently the world's biggest advocates of Socialism. They're a bunch of millionaires and billionaires. Now, if they were really Socialists, the first thing they would do is give away all their own money to the poor; but you see that that is not what they do. Instead, they're seeking to use their money and power to promote the ideology for others, while keeping their own fortunes and privileges intact.

Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." A rotten tree does not produce good fruit, or a good tree rotten fruit -- because the quality of a fruit tree is defined by its fruit. The Socialist tree is full of rotten actions, of bad fruit. So don't plant one. You can see what the Davos group is really up to by what they are actually doing.

Never heard of them.

Trudeau has. He's signed on. He loves the Davos group, and now does PR for them. Guys like the Davos group are going to take you to the cleaners, because you're well-intended, Socialistically indoctrinated and naive. So you may as well learn who they are now.

Are you one of them?

Heck, no. They're a bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are going to use Socialism to rob you and enslave you. And they are even going to tell you you'll be happier when they're done. And I'm betting you'll fall for that. I would never do that.

Given they ARE a 'secret' as I asked, how do you KNOW

They not only published a manifesto, which I have read, but they have a website and a massively-expensive international conference to which they draw as many world leaders as they feel they can pull into their web. So they're not THAT secret. The only real secret is what they really plan to do with you when they get the chance. But you'll find that secret out, if they have their way.

I would be more trusting of your beliefs if YOU were NOT religious.

That's not the case, actually: I'm not "religious." But I am Christian. (There's a meaningful difference, but I won't argue it with you here.) However, your decision in that regard is nothing I can change, right? If you don't trust people of my kind, I can't fix that.

My definition of 'religion' implies that you trust SPECIFIC facts that are NOT KNOWABLE in principle.[/quote]
Then your definition is wrong.

Why are you embracing the belief that independent WILL should supercede the compassion of other's interests?

I'm not. You made that up. But the truth is that Socialism is not in anybody's interest, except the selfish interests of the Socialist elite. And if I have an interest here, it's in not seeing more people starved, killed and brutalized by Socialists.

I don't defend those systems you mentioned in the least.[/quote]
Then why do you support the same political ideology that they all espoused, with it's 100% record of failure, its economic disasters and its invariable homicide?

So, according to this belief, is there ANY POSSIBLE government ideal that identifies 'social' to "Socialism"?

Socialism uses the word "social" propagandistically. It calls itself what it does in order to deceive the naive. But one can see from every case of real-world Socialism in history, that it has never been in the actually interests of a society to be Socialist.

Why is that a hard point to grasp? When an ideology has failed 100% of the time, and every time has produced economic and moral disaster, why would it even be a hard case to make that it should be regarded as a bad, failed ideology? And that's Socialism.

Although I've answered this above, you are PROPOGATING a percentage of failure that has no proof.

It has proof. It's been tried over and over, and still nobody can point to a single Socialist country that has succeeded. Use logic, then: if there is 0% success, that means 100% failure. C'mon, Scott...that's very simple logic.

You are arguing like this to me:

No, I am not. Scott...seriously, man...enough with the straw men. Enough with the trying to tell me what I think. You clearly have no clue. Why don't you just ask?

"Faith has not served me well in practice

Explain that, Scott...I'm interested. What do you mean when you say, "Faith has not served me well"? Do you have something specific in mind?

You are arrogantly picking your definitions

No, I gave you standard definitions, Scott. The last one was straight out of a dictionary. The one before was actually better, but you didn't like it.

I did not disagree with it so much as to YOUR interpretation...

I didn't "interpret." I just cut-and-pasted the definition straight from the dictionary. You have no leg to stand on there.

I need to point out how you conveniently dismissed "Christianity" as as example of 'socialism'

It wasn't "convenient." It was just accurate. You might wish it were otherwise, but sorry, it's just not.

What is the likelihood that there exists NO person, like myself, who claim that 'socialism' is an ideal that government requires serving the SOCIETY

I think the likelihood is good that there are some. You've been one, up to this point, unless I miss my guess. But it's wrong. Comprehensive government inevitably ends up serving only the Socialist elites, and preying on the gullible, vulnerable masses. There's a 100% record of that.

Sounding like Trump again with your presumption of statistical facts...

You don't like facts? Would you prefer Socialist myths?

I'm going to repeat what I said before: Sometimes, Scott, I think you are trying too hard to make me the spokesperson for some set of beliefs I have never had, but which you want to speak against anyway. I don't mind answering for my own beliefs. But I'm not going to pretend to be your imaginary uber-Captialist, or ugly oppressor, or whatever other fictitious suit you want to dress me up in.

Ask me what I think. I'll tell you. Quit trying to tell me. So far, you never get it right.

I hope you (and others whom I hope don't skip our correspondence) enjoy what we have to debate here.

I will, if you quit with the straw men.

We are still animals, as far as I'm concerned. And I'd like to see us preferentially become the 'gods' we dream up if only we could survive as a species long enough to do so.

Well, we are not just "animals," Scott. But we're not gods either. We're something in the middle. The problem with Anarchism is it treats us as if we are nothing but animals; and the problem with Socialism is it expects mere mortals to behave with the integrity of gods. But wishes are not facts, and Socialism is a disaster when it is paired with the realities of human nature. Here, in the real world, utopian political schemes get people killed.

I hope you and yours are well under this present pandemic and will look forward to another book to read and write here . I think we need more of you to at least be among the conservative side if we are to get past the abuses that I see occurring there.

My hope is this: if two people who have such different leanings as you and I can speak together truthfully, with mutual respect, then maybe there's hope for a more civil kind of political discourse. So it's worth trying. And however strongly we may disagree, we don't have to become disagreeable, do we?

Happy New Year, Scott.

[Advocate]

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=487839 time=1609730093 user_id=11118]
[/quote]

You make several good points i don't usually bother with, but here's one you didn't make which adds a framework for understanding:

Conservatives/culture can be judged by what they seek to preserve.
Liberals/society can be judged by what they seek to create.

[Scott Mayers]

You make several good points i don't usually bother with, but here's one your didn't make which adds a framework for understanding:

Conservatives/culture can be judged by what they seek to preserve.
Liberals/society can be judged by what they seek to create.

These are the defining features of 'conservative' versus 'progressives'. Thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

You make several good points i don't usually bother with, but here's one your didn't make which adds a framework for understanding:

Conservatives/culture can be judged by what they seek to preserve.
Liberals/society can be judged by what they seek to create.

These are the defining features of 'conservative' versus 'progressives'. Thank you.

Um...

Conservatives seek to preserve things like tradition, family, the Constitution, the rule of law, two sexes, freedom, democracy, classical rationality, the scientific method, objective morality, responsibility, free enterprise, accountability... If you want to judge them by that, go ahead.

[henry quirk]

You make several good points i don't usually bother with, but here's one your didn't make which adds a framework for understanding:

Conservatives/culture can be judged by what they seek to preserve.
Liberals/society can be judged by what they seek to create.

These are the defining features of 'conservative' versus 'progressives'. Thank you.

Um...

Conservatives seek to preserve things like tradition, family, the Constitution, the rule of law, two sexes, freedom, democracy, classical rationality, the scientific method, objective morality, responsibility, free enterprise, accountability... If you want to judge them by that, go ahead.

[Immanuel Can]

These are the defining features of 'conservative' versus 'progressives'. Thank you.

Um...

Conservatives seek to preserve things like tradition, family, the Constitution, the rule of law, two sexes, freedom, democracy, classical rationality, the scientific method, objective morality, responsibility, free enterprise, accountability... If you want to judge them by that, go ahead.

I forgot one. "Babies lives." They want to preserve those too.

[henry quirk]

Um...

Conservatives seek to preserve things like tradition, family, the Constitution, the rule of law, two sexes, freedom, democracy, classical rationality, the scientific method, objective morality, responsibility, free enterprise, accountability... If you want to judge them by that, go ahead.

I forgot one. "Babies lives." They want to preserve those too.

if you really wanted to shorthand it, you could say conservatives (and like-minded folks) want to preserve life, liberty, and property

as for the enemy: life, liberty, and property is what they want to dispense with

unfair, Henry! unfair!

okay...fine...the enemy doesn't want to dispense with life, liberty, and property, they wanna control life, liberty, and property

[Immanuel Can]

I forgot one. "Babies lives." They want to preserve those too.

if you really wanted to shorthand it, you could say conservatives (and like-minded folks) want to preserve life, liberty, and property

as for the enemy: life, liberty, and property is what they want to dispense with

unfair, Henry! unfair!

okay...fine...the enemy doesn't want to dispense with life, liberty, and property, they wanna control life, liberty, and property

No, it's fair for all three.

Let's start with liberty. They have to dispense with that. The only way to obtain equality, especially in a world that naturally produces all sorts of hierarchies, is to do it by force. And they trade off their natural liberty for the promise of a government-produced promise of security -- ironically, at the cost of never having a secure future again.

As for property, of course they want to get rid of that. They believe that property is the problem.

And life? Well, people don't do so well in the gulags, the re-education camps, the purges and the ditches into which the ideologues inevitably shoot them.

So in the end, the Socialists take all three. And the Progressives cheer while they do...until the Socialists come for the Progressives, in the third stage of the purges. But by then it's much too late.

[Advocate]

Only stupid fucknuts turn every single motherfucking discussion into a screed against socialism.

[Belinda]

Only stupid fucknuts turn every single motherfucking discussion into a screed against socialism.

There is more than one motivation why they do so.

Some cling to the authority of their social betters i.e. the people who made and edited The Bible, naming these people "God" as if a spirit could tell stories and issue explicit commands. Some of those have expended their life energies in service to this God often , like Church missionaries, doing a lot of good in the process.

Others believe the only good ruling elite is a section of people who deserve to be ruling elites by virtue of their power to make money.

Others who despise welfare socialism are often older people who are afraid of change and want to be ruled by what they believe to be the old traditional ruling elites such as aristocrats, soldiers, and churchmen.

Immanuel Can may well be one of the first group.

[henry quirk]

Only stupid fucknuts turn every single motherfucking discussion into a screed against socialism.

and only pissants miss the goddamn point

it's not about opposin' socialists, it's about resistin' slavers

the socialist is just one iteration of the slaver