the proper balance between idealism and pragmatism

[RCSaunders]

It is a mark of civilisation that people pay taxes to be used for the common good. The common good is goods we all share such as educating our young, caring for our sick, defending the nation, building peace between nations, building and maintaining housing, water supplies, food production and distribution, public open spaces for recreation, arts subsidies, public transport systems.Taxation is not theft it is a mark of civilised life.

The mark of civilization is when individuals are civilized and neither desire or attempt to use force when dealing with other individuals. Only the uncivilized, the ignorant, dishonest, irrational, and incompetent resort to using force in their relationships with other human beings. There is no way to impose civilization on any society comprised mostly of uncivilized individuals.

People do not choose to pay taxes, they are forced to surrender some of the product of their effort to a government, not for the sake of those that produce the education of the young, or medical care for the sick, the housing, water supplies, food, transportation and art, but for the sake of those who produce nothing, the uncivilized. None of the goods that benefit human beings are produced by the agency of force that expropriates the wealth of those who do produce those goods. Civilized individuals do not start or participate in wars, because they never initiate force against anyone else. All wars are between the agencies of force that control countries, not the civilized individuals living in those countries.

If you are really concerned about the welfare of human beings, you will be against confiscating the goods of those who provide all the things that benefit human beings, and oppose those agencies who start and fight wars.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no way to impose civilization on any society comprised mostly of uncivilized individuals.

Well, it can only be done by propagandization and force. And we certainly see plenty of that coming from today's Socialists. Their mantra is "destroy society," with the assumption "then we can remake it in a 'just' form."

But to them, "just" simply means, "with everything free to me."

[RCSaunders]

There is no way to impose civilization on any society comprised mostly of uncivilized individuals.

Well, it can only be done by propagandization and force. And we certainly see plenty of that coming from today's Socialists. Their mantra is "destroy society," with the assumption "then we can remake it in a 'just' form."

If you are talking about a socialist's (or any collectivist's or statist's) meaning of, "civilization," that, "can only be done by propagandization and force." It's not what I would call a civilized society, however. So long as all the citizens themselves are uncivilized, no system can turn them into a civilized society. You cannot create a healthy forest with nothing but diseased trees.

But to them, "just" simply means, "with everything free to me."

They're just demanding their, "rights."

[Skepdick]

The mark of civilization is when individuals are civilized and neither desire or attempt to use force when dealing with other individuals.

The necessity of force is the mark of an uncivilised society, not the desire to use it.

I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force.

[Immanuel Can]

You cannot create a healthy forest with nothing but diseased trees.

Nicely put.

But to them, "just" simply means, "with everything free to me."

They're just demanding their, "rights."

Heh. Yeah...the "rights" that their own Materialistic worldview (Neo-Marxism) gives them no reason to think they even have.

[RCSaunders]

The mark of civilization is when individuals are civilized and neither desire or attempt to use force when dealing with other individuals.

The necessity of force is the mark of an uncivilised society, not the desire to use it.

I do not imply for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force.

Actually, IC (if he'll forgive my taking is name in vain) agrees with you that some ideas ought to be supressed. I do not think any form of speech or writing ought to be suppressed, but to argue the point would be an attempt on my part to resist your view. In practice, however, once the door is opened to the suppression of ideas, it may ultimately be your ideas that will be suppressed.

[Skepdick]

Actually, IC (if he'll forgive my taking is name in vain) agrees with you that some ideas ought to be supressed. I do not think any form of speech or writing ought to be suppressed, but to argue the point would be an attempt on my part to resist your view. In practice, however, once the door is opened to the suppression of ideas, it may ultimately by your ideas that will be suppressed.

And what if those spoken/written ideas gain political momentum, influence and broad-social scale support?

If you practice infinite tolerance, then you must accept communism/socialism as an acceptable democratically elected form of government.

You can speak against it, but your ideology prevents you from actively opposing democratically elected socialism/communism; or opposing democracy itself.

Do you blindly trust the marketplace of ideas to produce moral outcomes or do you draw a line somewhere?

[RCSaunders]

Actually, IC (if he'll forgive my taking is name in vain) agrees with you that some ideas ought to be supressed. I do not think any form of speech or writing ought to be suppressed, but to argue the point would be an attempt on my part to resist your view. In practice, however, once the door is opened to the suppression of ideas, it may ultimately by your ideas that will be suppressed.

And what if those spoken/written ideas gain political momentum, influence and broad-social scale support?

If you practice infinite tolerance, then you must accept communism/socialism as an acceptable democratically elected form of government.

You can speak against it, but your ideology prevents you from actively opposing democratically elected socialism/communism; or opposing democracy itself.

Do you blindly trust the marketplace of ideas to produce moral outcomes or do you draw a line somewhere?

What you describe is exactly what has happened. In spite of all attempts to control speech communism/socialism are being voted in everywhere.

I have no use for any political system and regard them all as evil. Intellectually, I am opposed to them all.

I do not trust in any system or agency to produce outcomes of any kind, except bad ones. I trust only in what I can choose and do working with those whom I personally can trust and do business with and relate to socially to produce any outcomes that matter to me or them. No system is going to produce some kind of world or society one likes and the worst horrors ever visited on human beings have been the result of such systems.

I do not oppose, except in principle, any political system. I am apolitical, not anti-political. Work for and have any political system you believe in and can manage to implement; it's not going to work but it's your life and emotional and physical energy you'll have to spend on it, not mine. I'll not fight you, but I certainly will not be part of it and will live as I choose in spite of any system.

[Skepdick]

What you describe is exactly what has happened. In spite of all attempts to control speech communism/socialism are being voted in everywhere.

I have no use for any political system and regard them all as evil. Intellectually, I am opposed to them all.

OK.

I do not trust in any system or agency to produce outcomes of any kind, except bad ones.

So you believe all systems produce bad outcomes ?

I trust only in what I can choose and do working with those whom I personally can trust and do business with and relate to socially to produce any outcomes that matter to me or them.

You just described a political system. People self-organizing to achieve common goals that matter to them.
A small-scale system, but a political system none the less.

Would you say the outcomes of your small-scale political system are bad?

No system is going to produce some kind of world or society one likes and the worst horrors ever visited on human beings have been the result of such systems.

Then why do you form business institutions?

I do not oppose, except in principle, any political system. I am apolitical, not anti-political. Work for and have any political system you believe in and can manage to implement; it's not going to work but it's your life and emotional and physical energy you'll have to spend on it, not mine. I'll not fight you, but I certainly will not part of it and will live as I choose in spite of any system.

Why do you believe that your institutions are going to work if you are so cynical about the institutions of others?

[Belinda]

Immanuel, I prefer the following from Merriam Webster definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Same darn thing, essentially.

So I don't know what you meant when you said "your socialism" isn't the same as mine. It looks like the same beast to me.

You seem to confuse socialism with a sort of communist dictatorial regime. I view socialism simply like the definition I got off the internet.

[Skepdick]

Immanuel, I prefer the following from Merriam Webster definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Same darn thing, essentially.

So I don't know what you meant when you said "your socialism" isn't the same as mine. It looks like the same beast to me.

The dictionary definition of "socialism" looks identical to Fortune 500 capitalism to me.

People owning the means of production is just another way of saying "share-holding".

And then the standard principles of direct vs representative democracy apply. Use your voting shares to back board members, or pool them with others to form coalitions.

[commonsense]

Immanuel, I prefer the following from Merriam Webster definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Same darn thing, essentially.

So I don't know what you meant when you said "your socialism" isn't the same as mine. It looks like the same beast to me.

The dictionary definition of "socialism" looks identical to Fortune 500 capitalism to me.

People owning the means of production is just another way of saying "share-holding".

And then the standard principles of direct vs representative democracy apply. Use your voting shares to back board members, or pool them with others to form coalitions.

Are you saying that capitalism fits into the definition of socialism??

[henry quirk]

Same darn thing, essentially.

So I don't know what you meant when you said "your socialism" isn't the same as mine. It looks like the same beast to me.

The dictionary definition of "socialism" looks identical to Fortune 500 capitalism to me.

People owning the means of production is just another way of saying "share-holding".

And then the standard principles of direct vs representative democracy apply. Use your voting shares to back board members, or pool them with others to form coalitions.

Are you saying that capitalism fits into the definition of socialism??

state-socialism and state-capitalism (fortune 500 included) -- after you strip away *philosophy -- are synonymous









*look at what state-socialists & state-capitalists do, not what they say

[commonsense]

The dictionary definition of "socialism" looks identical to Fortune 500 capitalism to me.

People owning the means of production is just another way of saying "share-holding".

And then the standard principles of direct vs representative democracy apply. Use your voting shares to back board members, or pool them with others to form coalitions.

Are you saying that capitalism fits into the definition of socialism??

state-socialism and state-capitalism (fortune 500 included) -- after you strip away *philosophy -- are synonymous









*look at what state-socialists & state-capitalists do, not what they say

Thanks. Good point.

[henry quirk]

Are you saying that capitalism fits into the definition of socialism??

state-socialism and state-capitalism (fortune 500 included) -- after you strip away *philosophy -- are synonymous









*look at what state-socialists & state-capitalists do, not what they say

Thanks. Good point.