The Philosophy Now Forum

Shove off, Mannie!

[ahem]

Elon i could turn into an ascetic because he's smart enough to keep up in a convo. Not Don, though. He doesn't have the intellectual aptitude to experience enlightenment. With Elon, what you do is make him first feel guilty and then like a hero if he gives all his money to his techno salary-slaves. He would like this because it would be just another exciting adventure for him, a kind of bold publicity stunt that would launch him into the hall of fame of philanthropists. And he's just hippy enough to like the idea of living a minimalist spiritual zen tao chi designer buddhism lifestyle if he can at least get one very nice new RV and a lifetime income of $500 a week like regular folks. He would totally do it. It's just the cool thing to do. Especially at his age. He's had it all already. Now's the moment to do the thing, Elon. Do the thing no titan before or after you will likely ever do. Imagine the headlines. Trillionaire Elon Musk gives it all away after a short conversation with a shadowy philosopher.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 9:13 pm Shove off, Mannie!

You know what I'm saying is true. Nothing of what you promise has ever happened in a Socialist state. In fact, inevitably, it's the opposite. The police become hugely powerful, because they're the enforcement arm of a totalitarian State.

100% of the evidence is on my side. None on yours.

Holy f*** imagine the power of such a gesture. All the other billionaires would feel like chumps and the super parties of the wealthy elite would never be the same again. Every time one monopoly guy tried to one-up another monopoly guy to impress the trust fund babes gathered around drinking champagne and waiting to see who's the wittiest, some asshole will mention Saint Elon and shut the whole thing down. The monopoly guys will then all nervously clear their throats and glance around the room so to pretend they've caught the attention of another party of importance and must now take their leave of the group as the babes all swoon about like Brad Pitt just walked by wearing Gravite.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 7:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 3:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 3:20 pm Who is "we"?

We are the ones who believe a person should be limited in political power.

The Constitutionalists? That's where the limits of political power are spelled out.

So you're not a Socialist anymore? They believe in unlimited State power (i.e. unlimited dictatorial power).

What about anarcho-socialists or anarcho-syndicalists? Do they believe in "unlimited" state power? Is it impossible to believe in socialism and at the same time believe in limiting state power over the individual? (I.e. to limit both some of the powers of the individual and some of the powers of the state.)

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:18 pm Is it impossible to believe in socialism and at the same time believe in limiting state power over the individual?

No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

So they have to shut down all the other parties. They have to resort to totalitarianism, not democracy. They have no other way. They can't let the individual opt out, either. They have to force every person to play along. So again, they have to use power...the police...the media...a public network of snitches...gulags...if necessary, executions...for nothing is allowed to derail the Socialist train on it's alleged route to utopia.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:18 pm Is it impossible to believe in socialism and at the same time believe in limiting state power over the individual?

No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

So they have to shut down all the other parties. They have to resort to totalitarianism, not democracy. They have no other way. They can't let the individual opt out, either. They have to force every person to play along. So again, they have to use power...the police...the media...a public network of snitches...gulags...if necessary, executions...for nothing is allowed to derail the Socialist train on it's alleged route to utopia.

If it's a democratic socialist country, then the people are free to elect someone else if they think the state is overreaching. What would be wrong with that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:32 pm
No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

IC doesn't believe democratic socialists exist. He is agreeing with LENIN << Left Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder >> But wait IC, Lenin is arguing that the democratic socialists are wrong, not that they didn't (and still do) exist. If they didn't exist, why did Lenin write the polemic?

Yes IC, people who believe in democracy recognize that they can be voted out, and their programs reversed. Do YOU believe in democracy?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 11:52 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:32 pm
No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

IC doesn't believe democratic socialists exist.

Socialists exist. But they are never "democratic." By definition of Socialism, they can never be that.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:32 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:18 pm Is it impossible to believe in socialism and at the same time believe in limiting state power over the individual?

No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

So they have to shut down all the other parties. They have to resort to totalitarianism, not democracy. They have no other way. They can't let the individual opt out, either. They have to force every person to play along. So again, they have to use power...the police...the media...a public network of snitches...gulags...if necessary, executions...for nothing is allowed to derail the Socialist train on it's alleged route to utopia.

If it's a democratic socialist country,

Like what country?

...then the people are free to elect someone else if they think the state is overreaching.

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:11 am No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

What if everyone in society wanted socialism or only a small perpetual minority didn't want socialism? Is everyone free to elect for socialism, or is the majority free to elect for socialism? And if it isn't free to elect for socialism, then is that society truly "democratic"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:13 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:32 pm
No, because enforcing Socialism inevitably requires the totalitarian State.

Just imagine a polity elected a Socialist government, but the government knew that four years later, they might get voted out of office. How is Socialism going to be created and established, if every time it gets going a new party is voted in?

So they have to shut down all the other parties. They have to resort to totalitarianism, not democracy. They have no other way. They can't let the individual opt out, either. They have to force every person to play along. So again, they have to use power...the police...the media...a public network of snitches...gulags...if necessary, executions...for nothing is allowed to derail the Socialist train on it's alleged route to utopia.

If it's a democratic socialist country,

Like what country?

...then the people are free to elect someone else if they think the state is overreaching.

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Could a person believe that democracy was the ultimate good but that socialism had some merits to it also, but to a lesser degree or a lesser priority than democracy? And if so, what would you call that person? I assume you would not call such a person a "socialist"; is that correct?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:53 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:13 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 10:41 pm

If it's a democratic socialist country,

Like what country?

...then the people are free to elect someone else if they think the state is overreaching.

Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Could a person believe that democracy was the ultimate good but that socialism had some merits to it also,

Of course. But unfortunately for him, he can't have both, since they're mutually cancelling. To the extent that a polity is Socialist, it cannot be democratic. To the extent that it's democratic, it won't be Socialist. He'll have to choose...or pick a third alternative.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 4:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:53 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2026 2:13 am
Like what country?
Name one time in all of history where a Socialist regime has allowed itself to be voted out.

Could a person believe that democracy was the ultimate good but that socialism had some merits to it also,

Of course. But unfortunately for him, he can't have both, since they're mutually cancelling. To the extent that a polity is Socialist, it cannot be democratic. To the extent that it's democratic, it won't be Socialist. He'll have to choose...or pick a third alternative.

So is it the case that the more democratic a polity is, the less socialist it is, and vice versa? Or is it the case that a country that is democratic can have absolutely nothing to do with any values socialism might have? In other words, is it all or nothing? Is there no such thing as a little of both (maybe more of one than the other)? (As some try to say a country can be a "mixed" economy.)

"we" voted

all your base are belong to us

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 2:13 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 15, 2026 8:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 5:45 pm
This is a very serious problem. Having abandoned the metaphysical grounding of the Jewish and Christian worldview, what is one's incentive for unifying in defense of something? There are no longer any values they believe in in common.

Well, you can thank the Reformation and all those uppity antipapists for that. For an idea of how well we got along when we did have common values and beliefs, here is a list of the wars between 1000 - 1499: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1000–1499

Right. Well, you'll have to extract from that number all those caused by the RC's, because we already know they were doing that, and they're the institutional-political religion. And then you'll have to extract all those who did something their Scriptures commanded them not to do -- for then, it's not reasonable to think that it was their religious beliefs that led them to do what they did. One cannot blame a creed for those who refuse to obey it, of course. And the number left will be so vanishingly small you've got nothing to work with.

And it will always be dwarfed by the numbers of those who died in secular wars and purges...by orders of magnitude. By best estimates, not more than 4% of that total...

That's the best estimate, eh?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 5:45 pm...and certainly less than that.

Oh wait; your estimate is better than the best estimates.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 14, 2026 5:45 pmIf, therefore, you're recommending secularism as an alternative, your statistical applications will need some revision.

The point I was making, which course went over your head, is that you saying "There are no longer any values they believe in in common." is gibberish, because there has never been a time when europeans were united as you imply.
As for me recommending secularism, you are doing your usual inept attack on something I haven't said; but since you bring up "statistical applications" I haven't applied, that "certainly less than" 4% of wars you apparently concede were waged by people you would accept as 'Christian', I would suggest is commensurate with the number of europeans who have ever been 'Christian' according to the criteria you demand. In other words, Mr Can, your sort of 'Christian' is no less aggressive than the general population. Refusing to apologise could provoke violence, which given your aptitude for misinterpretation, I will make clear is not a threat, but others are not so accommodating, so I can quite see how someone like you could start a war.