151 replies to this topic

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

What's wrong with taking the best ideas out of something that was bad though? The idea that simply something is 100% wrong is kind of foolish if you ask me. Social Security is good so we take that, imprisoning and killing millions of people for a stupid reason bad, so we don't do it.

Not really a hard concept and not really all that worrying either.

Oh yeah I forget, down right evil people can't have at least one good idea.

Never said it was wrong to take an idea created by a bad person and implement it. Many good things were done in germany before the war - but thats often overshadowed by the horrible things that came later. That being said, many of the things being currently put in place seem to have little redeeming qualities atm, sadly.

[RavenHawk]

I see this has degenerated into a discussion of definitions.  I guess I’ve gotten too close to home as it seems many do the natural thing to distract from the purpose of this thread when one’s reality and foundation is shaken to the core.  As I’ve said many times, we could sit here and discus the academic differences between Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Kingdoms, and even Democracy (and any that I’ve left out).  But to do so means nothing.  It misses the point.  It’s the fluff in the window.  What I have done is to cut through the Bull$-hit to discuss the similarities or more precisely, the one important similarity.  

Yes, the term “Socialism” has been misused by many but it is understandable.  Yet here we are.  If one understands that doesn’t mean that they do not understand the meaning of Socialism.  There are areas in which society, economics, and government blur.  I am not creating new definitions out of thin air; I’m merely using it in popular context.  As someone had earlier said, perhaps we need to look at the spectrum differently.  That is what I have endeavored to do in several posts.  

I’m calling a spade a spade and I’m using the term “Socialism”.  In short, all governments lead to Totalitarianism, no matter how benevolent they start out.  It doesn’t matter if they are Left or Right.  What matters is how much control over the people they have.  Just because the people are sheep doesn’t mean that a government’s control is any less than a Totalitarian regime.  

The American Constitution was designed to keep government from slipping toward the Authoritarian end of the spectrum and stay us from total Anarchy at the other end, but Socialism has crept into our system for over a century now that politicians (no matter their position) dare to cross the line and drag our Constitution onto the path that Europe and other countries are travelling.  

But the point of this thread is to collect “traits” of a people that lose power, not on the differences between forms of government.

Edited by RavenHawk, 07 January 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

No RavenHawk, you made the fundamental flaw of equating everything bad in the world with socialism and assuming that right wing ideologies never overstep the boundaries of their power.
If your going to start discussion get the basic right otherwise you end up looking like an idiot who knows nothing.

Definitions are fundamental otherwise you confuse causes and effect and draw false conclusions.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

RavenHawk, on 07 January 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

I see this has degenerated into a discussion of definitions.  I guess I’ve gotten too close to home as it seems many do the natural thing to distract from the purpose of this thread when one’s reality and foundation is shaken to the core.  As I’ve said many times, we could sit here and discus the academic differences between Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Authoritarian, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Dictatorship, Kingdoms, and even Democracy (and any that I’ve left out).  But to do so means nothing.  It misses the point.  It’s the fluff in the window.  What I have done is to cut through the Bull$-hit to discuss the similarities or more precisely, the one important similarity.  

Yes, the term “Socialism” has been misused by many but it is understandable.  Yet here we are.  If one understands that doesn’t mean that they do not understand the meaning of Socialism.  There are areas in which society, economics, and government blur.  I am not creating new definitions out of thin air; I’m merely using it in popular context.  As someone had earlier said, perhaps we need to look at the spectrum differently.  That is what I have endeavored to do in several posts.  

I’m calling a spade a spade and I’m using the term “Socialism”.  In short, all governments lead to Totalitarianism, no matter how benevolent they start out.  It doesn’t matter if they are Left or Right.  What matters is how much control over the people they have.  Just because the people are sheep doesn’t mean that a government’s control is any less than a Totalitarian regime.  

The American Constitution was designed to keep government from slipping toward the Authoritarian end of the spectrum and stay us from total Anarchy at the other end, but Socialism has crept into our system for over a century now that politicians (no matter their position) dare to cross the line and drag our Constitution onto the path that Europe and other countries are travelling.  

But the point of this thread is to collect “traits” of a people that lose power, not on the differences between forms of government.

And US foreign policy is no exception to any of this.  The Patriot Act and the NDAA are great examples of this.   When government plays authoritarian as soon as it crosses the magic lines called borders, or domestically due to blowback from those authoritarian policies, it loses all credibility and the Constitution is sacrificed.  When government stops respecting the spirit of the Constitution in its foreign policy, it will eventually stop obeying the letter of the Constitution at home.  

Social Security is socialistic and there are socialistic elements in our government but I'm not sure why socialistic elements should be singled out when we can analyze our government for how fascist it is just as easily.   We should reject all forms of authoritarian statism both foreign and domestic.   It's expensive, it's anti-Constitutional.  It's preventable if we don't keep one standard for ourselves and another standard for everyone else.  

If freedom is so great, I suggest we get out of peoples' ways and let them have it.   Common sense, human nature and virtue don't suddenly collapse into Opposite Day just because we cross some arbitrary line drawn by bureaucrats.   They don't deserve the respect you give them.  Some people can't handle conversations about the responsibilities people have.  Others can't handle our most protected rights.   Yet we have both rights and responsibilities so I'll pull double duty here getting flack from the sum of both groups of people who can't handle either one.  Even when the disconnect with both rights and responsibility happens to be geographical as is the case with interventionist foreign policy.

Edited by Yamato, 08 January 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[RavenHawk]

Br Cornelius, on 08 January 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

No RavenHawk, you made the fundamental flaw of equating everything bad in the world with socialism

But it’s not a fundamental flaw.  That is precisely what I am saying and I’ve backed it up over several threads.  You need to learn how to read.

Quote

and assuming that right wing ideologies never overstep the boundaries of their power.

When did I assume or say that?  I didn’t.  You’ve applied your set of sensibilities on what I’ve said and changed my dialog into what you wanted me to say.  I said that it doesn’t matter if it is Left or Right.  You’re just not paying attention.

Quote

If your going to start discussion get the basic right otherwise you end up looking like an idiot who knows nothing.

I’m not the one looking like an idiot.  I established the basics.  You obviously didn’t try to understand.

Quote

Definitions are fundamental otherwise you confuse causes and effect and draw false conclusions.

Br Cornelius

In general I would agree unless there is an exception.  And this is the exception.  There are no false conclusions.  I ‘confuse causes and effects’?  What does that have to do with definitions?  The confusion is all yours.  I have well explained what I’m saying in several threads and you still refuse to open your mind to looking at something in a different way.  You’ve been corrected several times but I guess one can’t fix stupid.

[AsteroidX]

Socialism has a place in any very large population. It just makes sense.

I mean Lasix eye surgery...could be offered to correct many vision problems. (This will not be included in Obama Care btw)

MP3 players could be offered so everyone can enjoy music.

Food Stamps: Essential to supplement foodstores.

[Yamato]

AsteroidX, on 08 January 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

Socialism has a place in any very large population. It just makes sense.

I mean Lasix eye surgery...could be offered to correct many vision problems. (This will not be included in Obama Care btw)

MP3 players could be offered so everyone can enjoy music.

Food Stamps: Essential to supplement foodstores.

It doesn't make financial sense.   The reason the prices of MP3 players and cell phones and computers, hair transplants, and Lasik get cheaper over time is because they're not subsidized by government, they're subject to competitive forces of the free market which means that competitors are busy competing with one another for the best possible quality at the best possible price.   The reason that food, and energy, and education get more and more expensive is because they're all subsidized.  When you know you're going to sell something, you don't have to worry about the price you sell it for.  You don't even have to worry about the quality of what is produced.   It's someone else's money.  Do you worry about someone else's money, or your own?  This is the peril of government programs; it causes people not to care.

[Br Cornelius]

Yet the national health service of Britain costs half the price of the American system per capita for the same outcome.
That is a definite strike for socialized provision over private provision.

Sweeping statements about socialized vs private systems are meaningless without providing the real concrete evidence which shows the reality. Every case is unique unto itself and sometimes social provision is best and sometime private provision is best.
Simple.

Br Cornelius

[Gromdor]

Another trait about socialism-  You can be a conservative socialist.  You can also be a liberal capitalist.   It is a seperate spectrum from the conservative/liberal spectrum.

[questionmark]

Br Cornelius, on 09 January 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Yet the national health service of Britain costs half the price of the American system per capita for the same outcome.
That is a definite strike for socialized provision over private provision.

Sweeping statements about socialized vs private systems are meaningless without providing the real concrete evidence which shows the reality. Every case is unique unto itself and sometimes social provision is best and sometime private provision is best.
Simple.



Br Cornelius

Any of a dozen studies I have posted in the last years will show you that it does not. As faulty as the NHS may be, their results are better.

Edited by questionmark, 12 January 2013 - 03:24 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

The main single thing I loath in people is when they are presented with a range of options, and the evidence for their outcomes - they choose to go with the option which best fits their ideological bias.

That to me is the very definition of stupidity.

Br Cornelius

[Gromdor]

Personally, I admire people who stick to their ideogical values no matter the outcome.  Laying down in front of a tank to protest peace without regard for ones life for instance. Admittedly, it isn't the smartest move, especially if the tank runs over them and flattens them, but I still respect them for their values.
People who have facts and evidence put in front of them, but refuse to see anything but what fits into what they believe to be true sadden me however.   But in my lifes experience, people who only look down one way of the road of life tend to get smacked by the truck of reality coming down the road from the other way.

[aztek]

socialism = big gvmnt.

gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you  have.

[Br Cornelius]

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

socialism = big gvmnt.

gvmnt big enough to give you everything you need, is also strong enough to take everything you  have.

Wrong.

Br Cornelius

[aztek]

lol, i knew you'd say it