"There has never been true communism."

[gaffo]

since i am not Christian i am not under an obligation to affirm the Canon as more worthy than works outside of it.

I am.

enjoy your reading of Leviticus then.

i guess you never heard his sermon on the mount then.

Hmmm...I'm suspicious you don't know it very well if you think it advocates Socialism. Enlighten me: what part of the Sermon do you imagine gives warrant for Socialism? So far as I can remember, it contains no instructions to governments at all...but I'm ready to hear whatever you think it says.

Jesus sermon was the same as Amos 800 yrs prior, to care for the poor, give charity to the downtrodden, hate hypocrisy and the rich that the value thier wealth more than charity.

He gave those instructions to individuals. He was talking to you and me. He never suggested a governmental system to do the charity you and I were too selfish to do. Far less did he round up officials to strip people of their property or possessions. In fact, even the "community" in the early church did all their sharing voluntarily. Remember Peter saying to Ananias about the land he pretended to donate to the common good, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?

Private property, with voluntary sharing is not Socialism. Socialism uses force to deprive people of property. Socialism is actually the opposite of charity -- for whereas charity says, "Share what you have," Socialism says, "You have no right to anything, and thus nothing to give."

Jesus Christ was an advocate of charity...not Socialism.

I agree.

he hated governmental rule/rome, and why he was killed by rome.

you missed the part of the Gospels about the rich man that asked Jesus what he must do to follow him?

That's not in the Sermon on the Mount, but okay. He gave those instructions to a particular man again. By extension we could, in the extreme, take it to be an injunction that you and I should do likewise, though that would be a stretch. Still, let's assume it works.

Still, you'll never get any grounds for establishing a government to take away people's money against their wishes out of that passage. For one thing, the Rich Young Ruler didn't obey. But even if he had, the instructions were not that he was to take other people's property, far less to establish a government authority to force others to give theirs up; it was to be personal and voluntary. And the Rich Young Ruler was given the option to refuse. He did, and was allowed to keep his personal property. Bad choice, for sure; but he was allowed to make it.

I don't see any forcible government redistribution in any of that. I have no idea how you do.

so you do not view gov as having a role in re-distribution of wealth. ok fine. i do, because though charity is good, it is not enough (and why FDR beat Hoover - who seemed like a nice guy, but clueless per the role of gov in times of travail). FDR was elected and was basically a Socialist in all but name, created gov work programs that the people wanted, and it worked slowly to get us out of the Depression. ww2 helped more, not advicating ww3 where there will only be NZ as a winner.

Threads is a great movie btw, will removed 2 wks off your life with each viewing due to its realism, and why it is so good. MAD works, Amen for MAD.


so we just have a different view of gov, kind if weird me being a Libartarian and so out of instinct distrust power - esp gov power - but affirm gov power when the electorate is educated and informed to keep that gov in line to work for the people via the consent of.

so you just refuse to affirm gov role as an arbitor of redistribution of wealth in all cases?

you affirm Trickedown as real and not imaginary? if so why is the middle class in America 1/2 its size it was 50 yrs ago? - and why the underclass is 2 times as large now than in 1972? how many decades of Reaganomics are needed to get back to 1972? 40? 400? 4000?

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus Christ was an advocate of charity...not Socialism.

I agree.[/quote]
Okay. But that's not what you said.

he hated governmental rule/rome, and why he was killed by rome.

No, that's not true. He was handed over to Rome by His own people, and the Roman governor tried to let Him go. He was the one who said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." He was not at all interested in the government. He also said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

I don't see any forcible government redistribution in any of that. I have no idea how you do.

so you do not view gov as having a role in re-distribution of wealth.

None whatsoever. It's not theirs to distribute. Taking private property without permission is called "theft."

ok fine. i do, because though charity is good, it is not enough

Actually, charity does far more good than government intervention. Historically, government manages NOTHING efficiently or very well. That's because when a person is just playing around with other people's money, they always waste it, lose it, or manage it in a less-than-optimal way. There's no penalty for them wasting money, and no market forces to penalize them for carelessness or stupidity. So they don't steward our resources well.

But you know that. The stories of government waste are many and legendary.

so you just refuse to affirm gov role as an arbitor of redistribution of wealth in all cases?

Yep.

you affirm Trickedown as real and not imaginary?

No, I affirm the right to personal property, care for others, and charity.

how many decades of Reaganomics are needed to get back to 1972?

Is it your belief that Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama were all Reaganomics practitioners? That's interesting.

[Immanuel Can]

!

Here is some very recent data on worldwide socialism:



Socialism Data

The first eleven units of our Socialism campaign cover theoretical and historical aspects of socialism and their implementations. This final unit provides recent data on countries that are currently socialistic.

Four countries proclaim themselves communist: China, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam. Eight more reference socialism in their constitutions: The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Co-operative Republic of Guyana, Republic of India, North Korea, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Portuguese Republic, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, and the United Republic of Tanzania. Several others have socialist parties with governing majorities: Angola, Bolivia, Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Greece, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

We analyzed and compared these 24 countries to each other and the rest of the world based on publicly-available indices and databases.

Economic Freedom
(Heritage Foundation’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom):
20 of the socialist countries ranked 100th or lower, with the exceptions of Uruguay (47), where a fiscally conservative president assumed power, Portugal (56), Tanzania (89), and El Salvador (90)
All socialist countries scored low on economic freedoms related to the rule of law (property rights, judicial effectiveness, government integrity) except for China, Portugal, and Uruguay
All the countries scored 60 (out of 100) or below in the financial freedom category, which is an indicator of banking efficiency as well as a measure of independence from government control and interference in the financial sector

Human Freedom (CATO Institute’s 2019 Human Freedom Index):
17 out of 22 socialist countries (Cuba and North Korea are not included in CATO’s index) scored lower on total human freedom than the average for their regions. The only countries that scored above the regional average were India, Tanzania, and Uruguay
16 of these countries are in the bottom 50% of the world for personal freedom, and 17 are in the bottom 50% for economic freedom. Socialist countries got better results on the personal freedom scale than on economic freedom (13 vs. 9)
In general, these socialistic countries received their lowest results in Rule of Law; Association, Assembly, and Civil Society; and Legal System categories.

Corruption
(Transparency International’s 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index):
All the socialist countries mentioned above scored below 50 in Transparency International’s Index, except for Portugal and Uruguay
About half (12 out of 25) have declined in the corruption perceptions index in comparison to 2017. Nine countries ranked the same two years in a row

GDP (World Bank):
Except China and India, all socialist countries have GDP valued below $260 Billion.
19 out of 24 countries have positive GDP per capita annual growth, four of which have growth above 5.0% (no data is available for North Korea in this category)

China vs. Hong Kong (World Bank):
Life expectancy at birth: 76 vs. 85
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate): 4.4 vs. 2.8
Population ages 65 and above, male (% of male population): 10.0% vs. 17.1%
Population ages 65 and above, female (% of female population): 11.9% vs. 16.7%
Mortality rate, female, adult (per 1,000 people): 61.1 vs. 33.6
Mortality rate, male, adult (per 1,000 people): 95.1 62.6
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$): 7,752.6 vs. 38,781.8
Crude death rate (per 1,000 people): 7.1 vs. 6.3

North Korea vs. South Korea (World Bank):
Life expectancy at birth: 72 vs. 83
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate): 3.3 vs. 3.8
Population ages 65 and above, male (% of male population): 6.7% vs. 12.3%
Population ages 65 and above, female (% of female population): 11.9% vs. 16.5%
Mortality rate, female, adult (per 1,000 people): 97.1 vs. 32.9
Mortality rate, male, adult (per 1,000 people): 164.1 vs. 80.5
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$): — vs. 26,761.9
Crude death rate (per 1,000 people): 9.0 vs. 5.6
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 people): 13.7 vs. 2.7

Chile vs. Venezuela (World Bank):
Life expectancy at birth: 79.9 vs. 72.2
Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate): 7.2 vs. 8.4
Population ages 65 and above, male (% of male population): 10.0% vs. 6.5%
Population ages 65 and above, female (% of female population): 13.0% vs. 8.0%
Mortality rate, female, adult (per 1,000 people): 65.4 vs. 88.1
Mortality rate, male, adult (per 1,000 people): 106.1 vs. 188.9
GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$): 14,170.9 vs. 9,013.4
Crude death rate (per 1,000 people): 5.8 vs. 6.2
Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 people): 6.7 vs. 16.8

Compiled by Andrei Volkov and Stephen Hicks, 2020.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, why is it that you are not an American, but that you harbour that American view of socialism? NB not all Americans are bigots far from it!

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, why is it that you are not an American, but that you harbour that American view of socialism?

An "American" view? Is truth "American"? Is knowing the historical performance of Socialism, or the facts about its work today, merely an "American" thing? And given the recent riots and nonsense in the States, is it your belief that no "Americans" are under the sway of Socialism?

I've actually lived under elements of Socialism (though never under Socialism as the total economic system), and I've seen its limitations. Unless it's kept to very small, very carefully-managed sectors of the economy in practice, and shunned as a totalizing ideology, it always blossoms into corruption, economic disaster and human misery. Is it "American" to despise human misery?

Maybe. Americans have done a lot of charitable work, for sure. In that case, maybe we all ought to be more "American." We certainly ought to be less Socialist.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, why is it that you are not an American, but that you harbour that American view of socialism?

An "American" view? Is truth "American"? Is knowing the historical performance of Socialism, or the facts about its work today, merely an "American" thing? And given the recent riots and nonsense in the States, is it your belief that no "Americans" are under the sway of Socialism?

I've actually lived under elements of Socialism (though never under Socialism as the total economic system), and I've seen its limitations. Unless it's kept to very small, very carefully-managed sectors of the economy in practice, and shunned as a totalizing ideology, it always blossoms into corruption, economic disaster and human misery. Is it "American" to despise human misery?

Maybe. Americans have done a lot of charitable work, for sure. In that case, maybe we all ought to be more "American." We certainly ought to be less Socialist.

I simply get the impression that Americans without tertiary education often conflate 'socialism' with jeopardising democracy. I am older than you, I think ,and as an adult have experienced Labour and Conservative regimes. Labour was better for the working classes and the intellectuals, and democracy was better served by improvements in education, housing, and health.

[Immanuel Can]

I simply get the impression that Americans without tertiary education often conflate 'socialism' with jeopardising democracy.

Well, I'm not American, and I think I could satisfy you on the question of "tertiary education."

However, it's not "American" to make this observation: it's just factual. Every place Socialism has ever become the regnant system, it has always led to the bad effects of which we speak. There is not a single counter case in history; so what provides you with such confidence that you can make Socialism work, when every other regime has always failed so disastrously?

I am older than you, I think ,and as an adult have experienced Labour and Conservative regimes.

Perhaps not. But perhaps. I also recall those regimes, and how they fared.

[Belinda]

I simply get the impression that Americans without tertiary education often conflate 'socialism' with jeopardising democracy.

Well, I'm not American, and I think I could satisfy you on the question of "tertiary education."

However, it's not "American" to make this observation: it's just factual. Every place Socialism has ever become the regnant system, it has always led to the bad effects of which we speak. There is not a single counter case in history; so what provides you with such confidence that you can make Socialism work, when every other regime has always failed so disastrously?

I am older than you, I think ,and as an adult have experienced Labour and Conservative regimes.

Perhaps not. But perhaps. I also recall those regimes, and how they fared.

But socialism is not a system. It's an attitude towards rights of man.

[Immanuel Can]

But socialism is not a system. It's an attitude towards rights of man.

Heh. You might need some "tertiary education" if you think that.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun: socialism

• 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.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

[Belinda]

But socialism is not a system. It's an attitude towards rights of man.

Heh. You might need some "tertiary education" if you think that.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun: socialism

• 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.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

I always need education.

That definition suits me okay.

[Immanuel Can]

But socialism is not a system. It's an attitude towards rights of man.

Heh. You might need some "tertiary education" if you think that.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun: socialism

• 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.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

I always need education.

That definition suits me okay.

Well, it's a system, alright. And it doesn't even mention "the rights of man." And with good reason: Socialism takes the "rights" of the collective as primary, and the rights of individuals as subservient. For example, property rights are not ascribed to individuals. Nor, usually, is the right of free speech, eventually. And eventually rights of movement, choice, belief, expression, and life are all curtailed in the purported interests of the collective.

That's how Socialism turns into totalitarian repression...every time.

[Belinda]

Heh. You might need some "tertiary education" if you think that.

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/

noun: socialism

• 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.

• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

I always need education.

That definition suits me okay.

Well, it's a system, alright. And it doesn't even mention "the rights of man." And with good reason: Socialism takes the "rights" of the collective as primary, and the rights of individuals as subservient. For example, property rights are not ascribed to individuals. Nor, usually, is the right of free speech, eventually. And eventually rights of movement, choice, belief, expression, and life are all curtailed in the purported interests of the collective.

That's how Socialism turns into totalitarian repression...every time.

Not when accompanied by democracy and open government it doesn't!

Whatever side of centre your political stance, it's wise to support democracy and open government.

[Immanuel Can]

I always need education.

That definition suits me okay.

Well, it's a system, alright. And it doesn't even mention "the rights of man." And with good reason: Socialism takes the "rights" of the collective as primary, and the rights of individuals as subservient. For example, property rights are not ascribed to individuals. Nor, usually, is the right of free speech, eventually. And eventually rights of movement, choice, belief, expression, and life are all curtailed in the purported interests of the collective.

That's how Socialism turns into totalitarian repression...every time.

Not when accompanied by democracy and open government it doesn't!

Yeah, actually...it does. It has, in every case.

How do you Neo-Socialists imagine you can do better? Do you think you're made of better stuff than the old Socialists? Were they all fools, and you are now the recently-wise? Or is it only a lack of understanding of the actual dynamics that led people just like you down the road to totalitarianism that permits you to believe you're better than they were?

I think it's the latter. I don't think our humanity is better, less fallible or more wise than the previous generation, though they produced all the horrors of the Soviet gulag. Given this ignorance, plus overconfidence, we'd do exactly as they did.

[Belinda]

Well, it's a system, alright. And it doesn't even mention "the rights of man." And with good reason: Socialism takes the "rights" of the collective as primary, and the rights of individuals as subservient. For example, property rights are not ascribed to individuals. Nor, usually, is the right of free speech, eventually. And eventually rights of movement, choice, belief, expression, and life are all curtailed in the purported interests of the collective.

That's how Socialism turns into totalitarian repression...every time.

Not when accompanied by democracy and open government it doesn't!

Yeah, actually...it does. It has, in every case.

How do you Neo-Socialists imagine you can do better? Do you think you're made of better stuff than the old Socialists? Were they all fools, and you are now the recently-wise? Or is it only a lack of understanding of the actual dynamics that led people just like you down the road to totalitarianism that permits you to believe you're better than they were?

I think it's the latter. I don't think our humanity is better, less fallible or more wise than the previous generation, though they produced all the horrors of the Soviet gulag. Given this ignorance, plus overconfidence, we'd do exactly as they did.

But socialists are opposed to dictatorial regimes.

[gaffo]

Jesus Christ was an advocate of charity...not Socialism.

I agree.

Okay. But that's not what you said.

he hated governmental rule/rome, and why he was killed by rome.

No, that's not true.

yes it is true, because Jesus was an Essene, and so a Jewish Nationalist, and why Rome killed him.

He was handed over to Rome by His own people,

nonesense, Harrod may have handed him over - due to being a sellout/Roman Puppet - but Jesus' people - Joe ave jew did not do so, nor were they sellouts to Rome - only the elite puppets were - i,e Harrod.

and the Roman governor tried to let Him go.

bullshit rewritting of history via John's Gospel. with each "newer" Gospel you see less and less blaime upon the Romans and more upon Harrod.



Pilote was Rome and his puppet Harrod took orders from Pilate.

He was the one who said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." He was not at all interested in the government.

i've heard the quote, in which is it found?

He also said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

both agree and dissagee with.

Jesus was a Jewish Nationalist, and why he was killed by Rome, but also had a bigger picture of the Kingdom of God - here on Earth after the endtimes.

Historically, government manages NOTHING efficiently or very well.

I agree with this, though think the more effiecent personal charity is not enough due to not enough persons are charitable, so the need for ineffiecent gov, assuming said gov is via the consent of the governed.

taxes and all that.

That's because when a person is just playing around with other people's money, they always waste it, lose it, or manage it in a less-than-optimal way.

I agree.

There's no penalty for them wasting money, and no market forces to penalize them for carelessness or stupidity. So they don't steward our resources well.

yep sadly.

But you know that.

I do, and thanks for know i do.

.

The stories of government waste are many and legendary.

Ideed they are Sir.

so you just refuse to affirm gov role as an arbitor of redistribution of wealth in all cases?

Yep.

this is where we have to agree to dissagree, and thanks for the simple yay/nay on it. I view is personal charity is more effiecent, but not enough in numbers (most persons are not charitable - sad but true - some are too poor to be so - just stating my view here), so ineffeicent gov is required to make it up view sociel progamssn

you affirm Trickedown as real and not imaginary?

No, I affirm the right to personal property, care for others, and charity.

how many decades of Reaganomics are needed to get back to 1972?

Is it your belief that Clinton, the Bushes, and Obama were all Reaganomics practitioners? That's interesting.
[/quote]