Let us watch:
Food for thought. END
PS: As it seems necessary here is the historically anchored political spectrum with Overton Window:
And, here is what we need to know on culture/colour revolution pushes
Dinesh D’Souza on socialism:
160 Replies to “Dinesh D’Souza on socialism:”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dinesh D’Souza on socialism:
This is so old news…
Should there be a ChuckDarwin award for the most stupidest comment on UD each month.
I nominate this comment by ChuckDarwin as the first winner. Of course ChuckDarwin might disagree because there are at least 20 others by him that could have won.
Highly recommend
It’s a history of socialism and its attempt at revival. It’s the definitive book to read on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Afterlife-Socialism-ebook/dp/B0742HX258/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1637511765&sr=1-1
The “most stupidest….” Really?
I know it’s hard to pick when nearly everyone of your comments could win.
Why don’t you nominate which of your comments should win the award.
Arguing over democracy, socialism and communism is fruitless as there have been no examples of any society that has truly followed any of these.
Jerry and Joe Schooner,
One of my favorite political cartoons shows a large pile of skulls and other bones. A dialog balloon from one of the skulls says “But is wasn’t REAL socialism” to which another skull replies, “Oh f- off.”
Ignore the trolls. The vacuous posts strongly remind me of some of the A.I. that I’ve played with starting with Eliza and it’s Rogerian psychology. You can try it yourself online, but they are very rudimentary:
https://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/Eliza.htm or
https://www.eclecticenergies.com/psyche/eliza
YOU: This is so old news….
ELIZA: How is that for you ?
YOU: The “most stupidest….” Really?
ELIZA: How do you feel about that ?
So in response to vacuous trolls, simply enter them into the input and reply with the answers online. Unlike the ones linked to above, the original Eliza would also store significant nouns and verbs as variables, and then include them in the conversation.
Eliza is interrogative and tries to elicit expressions of feelings. Modern chatbots can look up short paragraphs on the subject and respond to the replies in a conversation tree that can include typical ad hominems or typically unsupported counter-assertions. I believe there are sample chatbots accessible online. These will likely produce better results.
What fun!
-Q
So, what does that suggest to you?
Jerry
I nominate the person who thinks “most stupidest” is proper usage…..
From Wikipedia,
So which flavor of socialism is D’Souza attacking or is he just using the word as a generic label for anything a good, laissez-faire capitalist would hate regardless?
Chuckdarwin/10
Seconded!
Jerry and Joe Schooner,
There are some great chatbots here:
https://manychat.com/blog/chatbot-examples/
https://www.tidio.com/blog/best-chatbot-platforms/
https://www.guru99.com/best-ai-chatbots.html
The key is that they use Natural Language processing to parse the input. While the ones linked above focus on customer interaction, sales and support, I’m sure they can and have been repurposed for various reasons, including low-effort responses to trolls.
-Q
From the best of the best to the stupidest of the stupidest.
We have a winner. The most inanest reply ever. But we have a tie. What are we to do? Who should receive the award for the most dumbest of all?
Jerry,
How about a shootout between any comments that follow? O.o
-Q
Socialism always fails because it is constructed on a false model of human behaviour. It assumes everyone will want what’s best for the group, but most people want what is best for themselves, as specified by themselves. And in any large group, there are a few – essentially psychopaths – who figure out how to game the system to take control and twist the model to their own ends. Utopias always founder on human greed, pride, or selfishness. As has been said, “original sin is the only doctrine of Theism that has been proven (time and again) by the evidence.”
Fastidious, well said. The same weaknesses apply to communism, democracy, monarchy, representative democracy and theocracy.
Society is always a balancing act between the rights and opportunities granted to the individual against the potential damage to others caused by the rights and opportunities given to the individual. Our current western society is far from perfect but it is a great improvement over what it was 50 or 100 years ago.
JS, you confuse rights with entitlements. What “society” — that reified, amorphous abstraction — grants, it takes away again as the balance of power shifts the Overton Window, generally through undermining the BATNA of lawfulness. As can be seen in the obviously enabled and likely sponsored red guard street rioters in the US, where the message is you dare not defend yourself, your livelihood or community. And in politicised, process is punishment prosecution by politicised law enforcement. That is what you get for allowing yourself to be seduced away from starting with what is the built-in first law coeval with our nature pivoting on the first duties you so obviously disdain. Were I a cynic I would laugh at the pretence of progress, but instead I can only shake my head at a march of folly. KF
PS: I added diagrams
#11 Seversky
D’Souza is using the word “socialism” strictly as a political trigger word to incite the right-wing reactionary crowd. Here’s a good profile of this knucklehead: https://newrepublic.com/article/151305/dinesh-dsouza-right-wing-troll-since-college
Can you name a right that has not been granted by the society in question?
JS, the POINT of core rights is that they are inherent to the individual and are antecedent to state action. Lawful states RECOGNISE but do not “grant” rights. Those that imagine they do the latter are prone to manipulate, trammel or erase rights of the targetted. I append an excerpt from a famous state paper that draws out the implications. KF
PS: I excerpt, July 4, 1776:
Joe Schooner/17
I couldn’t have put it better myself.
I would only add that, for me, the additional worry is that, as a species, we are trying to run societies that are far bigger than anything we’ve been faced with before. I think it’s why we’re beginning to see signs of them fracturing along “tribal” lines. The only alternative seems to be the oppressive, authoritarian regimes such as in Russia, China or North Korea which hold things together by a brutal and ruthless suppression of dissent. I hope that, eventually, we can find a better way but I’m not optimistic.
Kairosfocus @21,
While I agree with these sentiments as well as the Declaration of Independence, I cannot find a rationale against autocracy, oligarchy, or even the distributed power of a pure democracy. In each case, the individual’s freedom of action is limited to a greater or lesser extent, but nevertheless still limited.
Perhaps the rights of individuals were considered “self-evident” by the founders of the United States, but the same evidence they relied on doesn’t exclude anarchy either, does it?
-Q
Claiming this is not the same as proving it.
History begs to differ. Your desire for the existence of inherent, non state granted rights is based on your fear of the consequences rather than the actual evidence. And this is to be feared. But what should be feared more than this is the delusion that there is some list of poorly defined inherent rights. This only leads to the ability of those in authority to impose their will on others without question.
CD,
first, your resort to ad hominems is a telling sign and not in your favour. Your credibility is now NEGATIVE, you are so unreliable that you are an index of fallacies.
Second, like myself, Mr D’Souza is someone who has lived through a third world socialist experiment, and speaks as witness. Where, Venezuela is only the latest case of massive wealth destruction and chaos supportive of a lawless oligarchy as a result of socialist utopianism. In that wider context, I draw your attention to the events culminating 1989 – 91 which for cause utterly discredited socialist, and particularly marxism-inspired economic organisation and policy. Of this, there are dozens to hundreds of millions of yet living eyewitnesses.
At this point, anyone who tries to revert to or promote such schemes is trying to impose what did not and cannot work, starting with the very problem of value calculation identified by von Mises in the 1920’s. The only viable economic organisation and policy frameworks are those turning on lawful state free market enterprise with modest government that does not pretend to economic omniscience.
As I noted in my own recent OP on the matter, first:
At 96, I noted:
Then, at 156:
Socialism has failed. It is time that the academy and chattering classes acknowledge a particularly bloodily-bought, living memory lesson of history.
KF
PS: AmHD Definition:
I contrast Wikipedia:
JS, did you notice, self-evident? The alternative is absurdity, absorbing right into a licence or privilege granted — so taken away — at whim of officialdom. That you choose to implicitly cling to that absurdity and pretend it is default, speaks for itself; duly noted. I point out an exchange in the Nuremberg trials in which certain defendants pretended to be following the rulings of a legitimate government so they could not rightly be judged by external states (especially, by implication, as victors’ show trials). A key part of the response was, that one did not need to have a parliament’s decree to know that murder was a crime. KF
PS: Cicero, long since, anticipated the absurdity:
We here see the absurd follies that stem from dismissing our built-in moral government pivoting on first duties of responsible reason.
.
Sev@22
Meanwhile back on home, you have spent the past 10 years on a website hurling insults at those who have the intellectual temerity to acknowledge the physical evidence — the totally overwhelming physical evidence and its documented history within science — that the origin of life required an encoded system of symbols and a language structure – just exactly as it was predicted. This is physical evidence and reason that you refuse to acknowledge because such things represent a universal correlate of intelligence, confirming the design inference. You therefore ignore the science and history for the obvious ideological reasons. Even more, you have absolutely no intention of ceasing either your denial or your attack. Is this the “better way to run a society” you are hoping for?
Querius, under certain circumstances, autocracy and oligarchy are the only significant governmental options, the former rapidly evolving into the latter as no one person can rule and be judge over a nation. The dispute is then to try to promote lawfulness and correct the strong tendency to drift into lawless oligarchy. pure Democracy, so called, failed at Athens 2400 years ago and discredited itself for 2,000 years. It is the rise of printing, literacy, ferment surrounding the Reformation, rise of coffee houses [centres of discussion] and widespread newspapers and bills etc that allowed emergence of a sufficiently informed and self-government habituated public that following the Glorious Revolution, the thought frame and eventually substance of Constitutional democracy emerged in the USA. Such is inherently unstable and needs stabilising support from a wider culture. That is what is being eroded, quite willfully, today. KF
PS: Anarchy is excluded through the underlying double covenant understanding of nationhood and government under God, following the line of thought from Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos on. Magistrates are God’s servants to do good, and are accountable and subject to reform, replacement or lawful revolution if they go sufficiently bad, led by lower or emerging magistrates. In the US, the Continental Congress.
UB, sobering considerations, and on a topic that is always relevant at UD. KF
Or that we are the authors of our own fortune and misfortune. Just like history teaches us.
You are the first to reprimand others for not learning from history, yet refuse to draw the conclusions from history that are obvious to anyone not biased by flawed worldviews.
Throughout history, individual rights have been granted (or not) by the society of the day. Falsely believing that they are granted by some higher power just leads to further suffering. Doesn’t it make more sense to try to influence the “powers that be” to grant rights to those you believe should have them, and for the purpose you believe they should have them? If you can’t provide a rational reason to limit someone’s rights, then why should society accept your rationale. It is through this process that slavery was ended, women got the vote, homosexuals were no longer jailed, spousal abuse was made illegal, child labor was banned, interracial marriage was legalized, and so on.
Kairosfocus @28,
Thank you for your reply. It seems like the body of your argument is centered on pragmatism, which isn’t what the founders asserted was self-evident. Your postscript invokes biblical authority, which although I agree with, is also not what the founders asserted was self evident. Biblical submission to worldly authority does not specify the nature of that government but it excludes revolution.
The book I recommended, Rod Dreher’s, Live Not by Lies, devotes Part I to evidence that the U.S. is undergoing a takeover by a totalitarian minority as evidenced by the observations and alarm of people who escaped various communist regimes. Part II focuses on Catholic Christian resistance to the new “soft” totalitarian regime by not living the lie and by wisely and sacrificially standing up for truth regardless of the consequences (without being stupid about it).
Jesus taught his disciples not to resist government, but to be proactively cooperative in most cases, excluding only actions in direct conflict with the teachings and commandments of Jesus.
It’s also worth noting that this power grab is not unique to the U.S. but is being repeated in many other countries, which makes the process seem coordinated at worst and opportunistic at best.
-Q
JS,
I am a descendant of slaves and others on the fringes.
That makes me very aware of the foolishness of legal positivism and the nihilism it invites: law is whatever those who control the legal presses decide to issue — here, including “rights” . . . actually, mere licences, privileges or entitlements; we already have other words for what you mean so this is 1984 and Animal Farm style newspeak corruption of language. Or, in 2,000 year old words of protest, “no man could buy or sell, save he took the mark.”
It is significant, therefore, that you have chosen to double down rather than recognise what the key state paper cited highlights in its first paragraph: built-in laws of our morally governed nature and nature’s God as pivot of justice and especially in the onward, epochal 2nd paragraph.
Without prior principles of built in law being acknowledged, law that targets justice and requires prudence and truth as foundations for the required due balance of compossible rights, freedoms and duties, we rapidly end up in the thesis that might and/or manipulation make “rights”/ “right”/ “truth”/ “law”/ “justice”/ “knowledge”/ “history”/ “the dictionary” [= words and their meanings] etc, i.e. the absurdity of will to power nihilism. That thesis is instantly, patently self-referential and ruinously absurd as well as the gateway to lawlessness dominated by the utterly cynical, sociopathic and corrupt.
It is a moral absurdity that destroys just social order and it is intellectually corrupt and bankrupt.
All of which are immediately apparent to one with reasonable background to understand the significance of what is on the table.
Which of course is the real problem, as for generations as a civilisation we have been willfully and in too many cases cynically betrayed by those purporting to be our intellectual, cultural, educational, media and opinion leaders.
KF
Querius, utterly no, I repudiate pragmatism and similar species of debased, relativistic thought. As for Government under God, I suggest here on in context. There is a whole world of theology we have by and large been robbed of, especially as touching the gap between oligarchy leaning corrupt and lawless [re-read the passion week events and trial of Jesus as an exercise in judicial murder, observing the subtle protests] and a day in which — in key part due to gospel ethics influences — we have had the rise of Constitutional democracy. We have duties of prophetic, intercessory citizenship as Ac 27 outlines through a microcosm. KF
F/N: Plato’s warning is apt:
Yes, the march of folly our civilisation is now willfully embarked on was thoroughly exposed by one of our civilisation’s foundational thinkers in a major work, 2360 years ago. We have no excuse for ignorance of this argument and of its underlying context, the needless self-destruction of Athens’ democratic state through the Peloponnesian war.
KF
PS: So, too, is his parable of the ship of state.
PPS: I have long been of the view that a solid newspaper with a top flight editorial, reporting and commentary team is the people’s college. Where, the online and on the ground equivalent of the coffee shops of the 1600’s and 1700’s would be the people’s seminar rooms.
PPPS: Do not overlook the pivotal role of evolutionary materialism as ideology of the avant garde in this, then dressed in the robes of the philosopher; now in a lab coat.
History shows that rights and freedoms are given and taken away by those in authority. But it is not done in a vacuum. Without the support of a significant number of their citizens, those in authority risk being kicked out. Either by election or by force.
The fact that you do not like the consequences of this, and frankly I don’t like it either, does not warrant the conclusion that rights are inherent. Doing so is just delusional, wishful thinking. And, potentially, more dangerous than accepting that rights are given by those in authority.
Nonsense.
They are definitely inherent.
If certain conditions lead more readily to innate objectives, then what one calls them is irrelevant. They may be rights, freedoms, duties, obligations, laws etc.
Somewhere during the early to mid 17th century it became obvious to a few influential people that the oppression that had existed in nearly all the world since the beginning was counterproductive because of the nature of humans. So widespread freedom arose for essentially the first time, first in England and Holland and then the English colonies especially Pennsylvania.
The modern world began when these ideas of rights/freedoms started to spread.
It’s interesting that even in England and most of the colonies it was difficult to rid the people of the class system which favored the few and religious restrictions which excluded all but some religions no matter the status of the person.
In the Revolutionary War many of the officers on both sides had contempt for the common soldier.
#25: Kairosfocus
I’m unclear as to the basis of your claim that D’Souza “lived through a third world socialist experiment.” D’Souza grew up in a privileged family in India. India is the largest democracy in the world. His father was an executive for Johnson & Johnson. D’Souza went to private, Catholic schools after which he emigrated to the US and attended Dartmouth. After college he wrote for a number of right-wing publications including The Prospect and Policy Review. He served as a policy advisor for President Reagan and has been affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution, both well-known right-leaning organizations.
D’Souza’s career is well-documented. I would suggest that his experience is a far cry from living under a “socialist experiment.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.
Please define right-wing.
I have never seen a clear definition of it. My understanding is that none really exist in today’s world.
If so this is just more nonsense you contribute.
Aside: assuming you can show that there is a definition, does this definition apply to any organization/group of people that contribute harm to others.
Jerry, prezactly, it has now become an epithet. The only thing in common is not of the socialist left. That’s part of why I use a different spectrum model that is more dynamical and historically rooted as I put up in the OP as a reminder. Socialist ideologies tend towards lawless police state oligarchies with Orwell’s 1984 as an excellent satire. KF
JS, you are stuck in a rut, legal positivism, which is an open door to nihilism and fails. Your refusal to acknowledge that we are responsible, rational, significantly free and thus morally governed creatures so that rights inhere as inherently binding mutually compossible expectations that we be upheld and respected in our lives, persons, innocent reputations, honestly acquired property and achievements etc leads to might/manipulation makes “right,” etc. Instead of recognising the error and longstanding corrections (e.g. in Plato much less US DoI), you have further doubled down. Duly noted, negative credibility confirmed. KF
CD, you obviously failed to even listen to the first few moments before leaping to your favourite ad hom beatdowns to dismiss. Mr D’Sousa grew up in India and so whatever his relative privilege he saw the dislocations of socialistic ideology even in fairly moderate forms. So did I in my homeland, and I heard all the excuses and blame projections. There is already an outline above on why socialistic ideological central planning or just control of “commanding heights of the economy” so reliably falters and fails; it is an information and control problem and it can only be solved by distributed decision-making coupled through markets; yes, we can address welfare provisions etc (as was done from Moses’ day) but that has nothing to do with the fallacy of socialistic macroeconomic planning and the loss of liberty implications of such control. All you are managing to do is to inadvertently demonstrate how the lesson definitively shown in 1989 – 91 has been willfully suppressed by those who should know a lot better. KF
An excellent example of the appeal to consequences fallacy.
JS, no, another fallacy on your part. You confuse reduction to absurdity with I don’t like consequences. However, on this matter the ideology is conducive to lawless oligarchy and so fails to break out of the historic problem of misgovernment by the lawless entrenched in power; never mind progressive branding, regressive. It is therefore a danger to lawful freedom and should be rejected as an economic and political organising principle. KF
Unfortunately for some, even if we have inherent rights and responsibilities imbued in us by our creator, it is still a case of might makes right. It doesn’t matter if one finds it absurd or not; there’s no escaping it regardless of your ontological perspective. It’s either humans using some form of might or God. You can justify it any way that pleases you, and/or punt it back to some other entity, but at the end of the day, might makes right.
Once again you are appealing to consequences rather than presenting a sound argument for the inherent nature human rights.
JS, further doubling down, just noted for record. Policies are chosen for ends they credibly achieve and socialism fails to deliver economically while landing us back in lawless oligarchy. History shows that getting back out of loss of liberty is difficult and dangerous and economic damage can linger for generations. Specifically, the imposition of legal positivism has been known from Plato on to be conducive to lawless oligarchy. As for the absurdity that might makes right, that speaks for itself. KF
Kairosfocus @33,
As I often complain regarding certain posters here about their assumption that their unsupported assertions do not constitute irrefutable proof (after which their heads explode), I’m attempting to apply the same standards to the famous portion of the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
The equality of all men and women in the judgment of God and under law seems implicit in reason and in the Bible. Likewise the “right” to life is expressed in the negative in the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not murder.” However, society and its government is obligated to take someone’s life only in prescribed circumstances by due process and evidence when specified laws have been broken.
The right to “Liberty” can also be discussed from the negative in the form of two social institutions: imprisonment and slavery.
As to imprisonment, it is mentioned clearly in Ezra 7:26:
Similarly, slavery is tolerated but heavily restricted in the Bible (a whole different discussion).
However, these apply to individuals rather than a societal right to Liberty from seemingly arbitrary and capricious laws . . . and reasonable ones such as speed limits on streets to name one of them. The examples included in the Declaration of Independence list a number of complaints, for example
Upon what “self evident” and “unalienable” right is this based on?
And finally, what is the “right” to the “pursuit of happiness” based on and what does its removal look like? Restricting the use of psychoactive drugs? Restricting prostitution, pornography, or alcohol (as during prohibition)?
It’s my understanding that this last “right” was originally the right to Property, which does seem more reasonable in that it’s violation would be confiscation or “civil forfeiture” as is still commonly practiced in the U.S. where cash, land, and vehicles are confiscated by the authorities when suspected of being involved in some unspecified crime.
Or perhaps this last “right” is now being interpreted as the right to be happy, and not being happy means you’re been oppressed somehow requiring governmental intervention in the name of “fairness.”
-Q
It is not “happiness” that you have a right to, but you have the right to pursue it. In short, there should be no unjustified roadblocks or impediments to prevent you from happiness. For example, segregation was an impediment to black people in their attempt to pursue happiness.
JS, happiness is in the context of fulfilling one’s proper ends and calling, consistent with his or her nature, individuality and common humanity. KF
Querius, rights are first individual, and nations are founded on individuals in families. The context is the double covenant of nationhood and government under God with consent of the governed. Such includes that taxation is a due and moderate agreed sum proportionate to the proper work of government otherwise it becomes arbitrary power, oppression and theft. Similarly the power of regulation and making civil laws. Government grown too big for its britches becomes a usurper subject to remonstrance, reform and if necessary revolution led by lower magistrates or emerging representatives. Today, the sound general election is a solemn assembly to audit, reform and replace failed government. Which is why electoral fraud of material scope is treasonous, an invitation to bloodshed. KF
Kairosfocus @51,
Again, I agree with everything you stated, including the implication that voter/voting fraud is tantamount to taxation without (proper) representation. But . . .
Upon what foundation, biblical or philosophical, is the concept of “with the consent of the governed” based upon?
I’ve never been able to come up with a satisfactory answer.
-Q
Querius, have you read Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos or other similar works? [Try p 60 on here] Note I mention the double covenant view of nationhood and government under God. Consent of the governed appears in that context, with several key examples and with say Nimrod as counter-example of a man setting up in power in defiance of God with scattering of nations as direct result. Note too how when Saul went bad dynasty was changed and similarly with Solomon and Rehoboam. The principle of consent in covenant and maintained in context of good stewardship is a bulwark against Nimrod-like oppression. Where, intercession of prophets and lower magistrates is also exemplified (note the principle of instructive example established in NT) as a means of remonstrance, with reformation and replacement as onward sanctions in face of defiance. In this context, rights-recognising and protective Constitutional democratic self-government through elected representatives with limited terms is a blessing and privilege bought at great cost; note the long shadow of Ac 27 on Christians as good citizens. It is also unstable requiring buttressing from the community, with a culture of Scripture-guided godliness a key part. As the West becomes increasingly apostate, a Rom 1 world emerges with many a Nero or Caligula waiting in the wings to be pervert in chief and domineering lord. This outline, given a link already provided here, should be enough for UD, which is not a site about Bible, theology and related matters. This thread is a supplement to the Barna thread that identified that a large proportion of millennials have been mis-taught to imagine that socialist utopianism is solution to the ills of the post WW3 west. Somehow the voices of 100’s of millions of eyewitnesses to the fiascos of such statism on steroids have been sidelined. Which cannot be an accident, we are looking at willful betrayal of civilisation by those pretending to be the luminaries and anointed leaders. KF
The Cato Institute publishes a free book on economics for anyone interested
https://www.libertarianism.org/books/economics-free-markets-introduction
The Cato Institute is a libertarianism organization. I personally don’t consider my self a libertarian so this is not a recommendation based on that ideology. I do however believe free markets are the best way to run an economy.
Kairosfocus @53,
Thank you, I’ll look up the references you cited. I consider myself more of a libertarian rather than a statist, and by today’s shifting standards, a centrist.
The Roman government at the time of Jesus was highly oppressive in Israel and extremely corrupt. So the religious leaders in his society asked Jesus whether it was lawful under Torah to pay taxes to Rome. Should an observant Jew fund the monster or resist it?
Of course, you know the shocking answer that Jesus gave.
I could easily accept that the founders of the U.S. were thinking of Plato’s Republic, in which Plato viewed democracy as a pathological manifestation of self government, but I don’t know whether this was actually the case. Perhaps, the subject is covered in one of your links.
Thank you.
-Q
Querius, this is not a Bible and theology site, but I will give a couple of notes. First, the quiet premise is, what belongs to Caesar and how did he come by it. The answer is, effectively, in Rom 13:4 —
That is, the primary task of the civil authority as God’s servant is to do good and particularly by upholding, exemplifying and defending the civil peace of justice from WRONG-doers. There is no “property” of the civil authority that allows for him to turn evildoer and expect us to support him in and carry out evil. So, taxes of prudent proportion are due to support reasonable government services in that context. Likewise, general good citizenship and prayer that said civil peace would prevail as that is the best context to live a godly life. And more.
As for Plato, he wrote after the suicide of Athenian direct democracy through the Peloponnesian war, with the added matter of judicial murder of Socrates, Plato’s teacher. Such Democracy was unworkable at the time and would be so today. Constitutional, representational democracy in a literate, informed culture with effective media watchdogs, the classic liberties found in bills of rights etc and a community that recognises the built in law of our nature can work. Until people take it for granted and begin to play the dirty faction games Plato skewered in The Laws and in the parable of the ship of state in The Republic.
Look all around us.
KF
Kairosfocus @56,
Yes, understood. That’s not my point.
My point is to question the source of “self evident” truths referenced by the founders of the United States.
For example, Caesar’s face is on his coinage, which Jesus asserted belongs to Caesar, but humans bear the image of God. If a Roman soldier legally demands a civilian to carry his pack for a mile Jesus advocated carrying the pack for two miles. If someone sues you for your coat, give him also your cloak. The early church distributed contributions to the needy among them, which sounds socialistic. And Jesus told the Judeans to pay their taxes to Rome despite their not consenting to be governed by Rome.
My point is that founding documents of the United States don’t seem to be founded on biblical principles, but on other principles including “the consent of the governed.” Surely the Romans did not have any such consent from the Judeans! Instead, in 70 A.D., they made the source of their rule quite clear by crucifying perhaps up to a million Judeans by some estimates.
So, where did Thomas Jefferson get his ideas?
But the answer, as far as I’ve been able to determine, is that these concepts originated with Thomas Hobbes.
Thus, Thomas Jefferson’s “self-evident truths,” were self-evident to Thomas Jefferson because he apparently chose not to cite Thomas Hobbes for some reason, nor build a case for the “consent of the governed.”
Or have I missed something?
-Q
Querius,
context is key. Being a Roman subject (as opposed to citizen) with Roman auxiliaries — as opposed to legionaries — recruited by policy from known enemy states as main occupying troops with associated general issues of oligarchy is one thing, learning lessons of discipleship (not being waspish or full of seething anger etc) is another, the issues of one’s own government are a third. There are many other texts and contexts which become relevant and Vindiciae is a discussion of such; in short there needs to be a systematising balance to our theology of nationhood and government under God, where for example Ac 17 and 27 are very relevant respectively.
This is not the place for drawing that out in detail, nor is this thread primarily about that.
Where, we should further realise that not every relevant truth is found in the Bible, where also truths will be mutually compatible on the thesis that we live in a cosmos, an ordered, coherent system of reality, rather than a chaos: truths that accurately describe the various aspects must and will all be so together. For instance, in no possible world can a square circle be instantiated. Similarly, we will find nowhere in Scripture an elaboration of Arithmetic or textbooks of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Yes, there is a statement of the Law of Identity but no elaboration of systematic logic. And more.
As for the self-evidence, are we equally human beings or not, do we share a common rationality, with conscience guarded moral government? So, do we face neighbour-love as a basic premise of law or not, rather than nihilistic will to power that cares not one whit beyond what can I get away with? The self-evidence grows from recognition of such factors tied to observing the patent absurdities of the rejection of such principles. I pause to show again an extended citation from Locke, which draws out the Biblical and natural law influences at work:
Hobbes and others discussions reflect the too often unacknowledged influence of the Scripturally derived double covenant understanding of nationhood and government under God. This has been further amplified in recent generations by radical and now cynical secularist humanism. We are beginning to reap the fruit of our collective folly and errors, much along the lines Plato warned of.
And, again, this thread is not the place for elaborating essays on political theory and its links to theology, philosophy, ethics, history etc. or the failings and bias-driven errors of current theorists. I outline, there is much elsewhere.
The thread is about a specific issue, following up from the identification of how so many millennials have been led to imagine that Socialism is a superior principle of economic, political and societal organisation only thirty years after the events at the turn of the 90’s plus the technological and prosperity transformation of recent generations have decisively answered in favour of lawful state, free enterprise, market driven economics with markets for finance and investment etc.
We need to see our way through a current peril implicating much of our so called intellectual, educational, media and opinion forming leadership in a plain and highly material betrayal of duty to civilisation. Which inter alia goes to how we evaluate the balance of scholarship on the merits.
KF
PS: I must correct a tendency to speak as though Tho Jefferson was sole author and idea-source of the US DoI. Compare his draft with the final and you will see that much of the very phrasing was adjusted and there were clear negotiations on specific points. In which context, there is the further factor of a broad range of thought and history of ideas and theology etc behind it. So recall, there were 55 or 56 IIRC signers and it was issued by a Continental Congress with John Hancock, then president, as first signatory.
PPS: It is worth pausing to note Plato’s ship of state:
With, Luke’s case study, doubtless influenced by awareness of the just above:
We can go on to Ac 17, which outlines the Christian worldview before an Athenian audience, noting the offer of proof for the gospel, resurrection witnessed by 500 who could not be broken:
I will again explain the obvious problem that causes socialism.
In growing up society puts pressure on people to do their best. School, parents, government, and people’s own ideals, puts enormous pressure on the individual, to do their best.
This pressure to do their best, leads people to conceive of making a choice, in terms of figuring out the best option.
However, the correct fundamental definition of making a choice is in terms of spontaneity, and to choose in terms of what is best is only a complex way of choosing, involving sorting out options.
The definition of choice in terms of what is best, degrades into the logic of like a chesscomputer calculating the best move, in a completely forced way.
So then the idea of freedom becomes divorced from the idea of choice. Choices become to be understood as forced.
More importantly, also the idea the subjective spirit making the choice, is cut out of the concept of choice.
In the correct definition of making a choice the alternatives are in the future, and then the subjective spirit makes one of the alternatives the present.
But in the concept of choice in terms of what is best, there the alternatives are in the present, where they are being sorted, and then the option which is best is performed.
All subjecitivity, like the love in personal relationships, and the expression on beauty and so on, is in reference to the agency of a choice, the subjective spirit.
The spirit makes a choice, and the spirit can only be identified with a chosen opinion. So one can only choose an opinion whether some decisions was made out of love, and not measure the love as fact.
So having thrown out the subjective spirit from the concept of choice, it means all subjectivity is destroyed, and people become materialists.
Socialism is just the political application of this materialism.
You can see that this is how socialism is produced, by that it accurately explains the psychogological profile of socialists.
A socialist is:
– Always overachieverish, wanting to their best
– By their definition of choice that they use, any choice they make is per definition for the best. So they lack conscience.
– Socialists are generally emotionless, calculating people.
– Mental illness runs rampant among socialists.
– They make formulaic policy of what is good and bad, instead of having common sense judgement.
Mohammadnursyamsu: I will again explain the obvious problem that causes socialism.
Forgive me if I ask a really stupid question but it’s in an attempt to understand your worldview.
When we’re young we tend to view the world from an extremely self-centric, short-term point of view. Quite naturally. We don’t yet understand how our decisions and actions affect other people and carry forward. We don’t understand consequences, everything seems to be NOW.
As we age we remember some events in our past and how certain actions and decisions carried forward and affected things that happened later. So, partly, we start making choices in an attempt to avoid negative repercussions, some immediate, some later. We start to consider ‘better’ options as those which avoid ‘bad’ futures and tend to bring about ‘good’ futures.
This is all very natural and obvious.
Are you saying that we can get too fixated on trying to analyse decisions in an attempt to reach an optimal outcome OR are you saying we should just keep reacting in the moment without consideration of the future?
They make formulaic policy of what is good and bad, instead of having common sense judgement.
Are you saying we should not use data and rationality in an attempt to improve our policy and legal choices?
For what it’s worth . . .
Opposite of my own experience. Socialists always have someone to blame for their indolence. Or they become socialist to atone for their ill-gotten wealth.
They justify disastrous outcomes by asserting their good intentions. It used to be common to see ecology- and socialism-themed bumper stickers plastered all over Volvo station wagons belching black smoke from their exhausts. I was once tempted to make them go crazy with my own custom bumper stickers:
GIVE WAR A CHANCE
NUKE THE WHALES
CELEBRATE GLOBAL WARMING
But I didn’t want to get rammed by wild-eyed eco terrorist in a smoking Volvo station wagon.
In my experience, they are constantly whipped into a frenzy by appeals to their emotions. They don’t know how to use calculators or balance a checkbook. They think they have money as long as they still have checks. Here’s a quote variously attributed: “A young person who’s not a socialist has no heart; an older person who’s a socialist has no brains.”
Not sure about this one. I’ve seen plenty of wackos on all extremes.
They consider themselves “intellectuals,” but have neither consistent policy nor common sense. They love to be generous with other people’s money, but they’re lousy tippers.
Just my opinion.
-Q
All of these utterances are proceeding from subjective minds.
–Ram
Hmm, I thought some of them came from subjunctive minds but that’s just my subjective opinion.
-Q
I personally prefer objective minds. But there are not many here.
Many can’t bear the pain of objectivity. To be objective is to be nailed on the Cross.
@JVL When kids are very young, then generally kids are more spontaneous. And then they would have the correct fundamental understanding of choice still, in terms of spontaneity. When they get older, and especially when they go to school, then the pressure is piled unto them, to think of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option. And those kids who are under a lot of pressure of this kind, will become materialists and socialists later on in life.
I already explained this perfectly with reference to the concept of choice as like a computer calculating a move, but you just totally ignored the explanation. Computers don’t have emotions, if you explain choice like how a computer does it, then you have thrown out your emotions. Throwing out emotions, is a very bad idea.
I am not saying it is wrong to do your best. I am saying it is wrong to make that the fundamental definition of making a choice.
And that these socialists may look emotional, does not mean that they acutally have a mature well developed emotional life. On the contrary. They don’t have a mature emotional life, because they are obssed with objectivity, and clueless about subjectivity.
You can see the socialists when they talk about justice, they calculate it in terms of everyone getting the same amount of money, and things like that. They calculate everything, and all the socialist intellectuals are all materialists, who do not accept the reality of the subjective human spirit making a choice.
Mohammadnursyamsu: I already explained this perfectly with reference to the concept of choice as like a computer calculating a move, but you just totally ignored the explanation. Computers don’t have emotions, if you explain choice like how a computer does it, then you have thrown out your emotions. Throwing out emotions, is a very bad idea.
You seem to think there is some very simple and easy criterium or way to make a decision but you don’t explicitly state how to do it. Perhaps a couple of examples would help . . .
How would you decide if climate change is happening because of human interventions?
How would you decide if same-sex marriage should be made legal?
Concluding that climate change is happening is not difficult. Just look at trends in global temperature and frequency of severe climate events. Conclusively deciding that it is man-made is far more difficult.
If it’s consensual and does no harm then it should be legal.
JVL, I give you a word from sustainability circles, problematique. Where, even the simple is difficult. KF
PS: When explaining systematic mutually supporting thorny challenges here, I simply point to a local weed with particularly vicious V-shaped nail-sized needle sharp thorns — yes, 2 for 1 deal — that grows in thickets and say, kusha thicket. The message gets through instantly.
PPS: Kindly, show me a square circle.
JS, there is a fallacy of the false consensus narrative, often travelling with no true Englishman ans appeal to the stick. As for climate, by definition, a 30 – 33 year moving average so it is always changing, and it shows quasi-periodic cycles of varying epoch, we should be a lot less confident in fairly crude models and simulations of a known chaotic system and should undertake no policy initiatives that do not make sense on other far firmer grounds. Finally, kindly join JVL in the square circle hunt. Then, come back to us on the law of identity, that A is A i/l/o its core characteristics vs the bewitching power of word magic in a general policy and legal nihilism, will to power age that imagines might and manipulation make “right” etc. Oh, I forget, you already discredited responsible rationality and its government by first duties starting with truth, right reason and warrant so there is utterly no reason to pay more attention to your fulminations than the burping of a cow. My bad. KF
There is nothing stopping you from heeding your own advice while others continue to discuss the issues.
@JVL If climate change is caused by human intervention, is a factual issue, and factual issues are not chosen, they are forced by the evidence.
If samesex marriage should be legal. One can feel that it is disgusting, and that would be one reason for not allowing it. And one can feel it’s loving, and that would be a reason for allowing it.
And so many judgements can be made, and in my judgement homosexuality is generally superficial, and related to mental illness, while heterosexuality is worthwhile, especially in relation to raising children, and that is why samesex marrigage should not be allowed.
I wonder when climate-change deniers might concede there is a problem. When the Maldives disappear beneath the waves? Or Florida?
When Obama’s beach house disappears or the Statue of Liberty?
There are photos of each from the beginning.
Question: do you ever admit the truth?
Kairosfocus: Kindly, show me a square circle.
Please explain to me, as a loving, caring, Christian, why it is that you can’t even use the word homosexual? What is it that you are so afraid of?
And I have to apologise to many of you here: I find that many times I am blocked from commenting. I get a ‘503’ error which says something about the site is blocking me. So, sometimes, when I don’t respond it’s because I’m not allowed to. If you think that’s wrong then you should talk to the site administrators.
🙂 Looks like someone likes the smell of turd and is confused why there are people that find it repulsive.
JVL @76,
As a Christian who follows the teachings of Christ, my mission is NOT to change or restrict anyone’s immoral behavior, whether it’s homosexual, heterosexual, or other sin.
The 2D umbra of a 3D cylinder of height = diameter can be a circle or a square depending on the direction of a distant light. This means our perception depends entirely on our perspective (presuppositions), and that Reality (which transcends “objective” and “subjective”) can be surprisingly difficult to understand!
Note: Occasionally, I also find myself blocked from commenting–I think it’s an intermittent problem unrelated to anything that I post.
-Q
JVL, again, kindly show me a square circle. Obviously you cannot, thereby showing that you understand basics of logic of being, including that an actual thing or state of affairs A is such in light of its core distinct compossible characteristics. Where, a proposed circle square CS is such that suggested characteristics are not compossible so it cannot be in any possible world. So while we can form words and representations, they have no power to poof into existence what is impossible of actualisation due to contradictions of required characteristics. Words only get you so far. So, we know we can form words that represent non being, and we may even use power to impose CS under colour of law, even with penalties and stigmatisation of those who point out the nakedness of the Emperor. We can induce many to lie against sound conscience and say that there are CS’es. All, to no avail in reality save to wreak havoc. So, we need to do some rethinking about what we are doing and where it will end. That starts with the unwelcome realities as opposed to imagined utopias of socialism, and it holds for your latest red herring distractors. This thread is about where such myth making can take us, in the name of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million murdered victims, not to mention a lot of needless waste, impoverishment, frustration and general oppression. Where, that you pose distractors in the face of so soberingly serious a subject with high relevance, speaks telling volumes about you. KF
JS, you would find it advisable to pay heed to the just above to JVL, and you may wish to also ponder on thread ownership. KF
Mohammadnursyamsu: in my judgement homosexuality is generally superficial, and related to mental illness, while heterosexuality is worthwhile, especially in relation to raising children, and that is why samesex marrigage should not be allowed.
As a society a decision has to be made in order to determine what will and won’t be protected by law and for support funds.
Are you willing to be on the ‘losing’ side of that argument?
Seversky, note your rhetorically loaded usage, “climate change . . .” where by definition climate is a 30 or 33 year moving average of weather and by definition changes, so the debate so many wish to foreclose by locking out serious questions is sources of trends, linear or quasi-linear, quasi cyclical etc with stabilising feedback components, then headaches over modelling and simulation etc. Hence the fallacy of false, claimed settled consensus:
This is one of the focal issues we need to ponder, and through that pondering, see why I put on the table the prudential policy principle that “[we] should undertake no policy initiatives that do not make sense on other far firmer grounds.” That is something I have repeatedly put in relevant RW policy analyses for fairly obvious good reason.
Where, of course, your resort to “deniers” is a nasty little rhetorical echo of holocaust denialism. So, kindly drop that sort of invidious suggestion.
KF
JVl et al, you are posing a toxic distractor in the face of the ghosts of 100 million victims. I gavel the distraction as of no utility on the main question and given attitudes on display through posing such distractors, something that would come to no good result. We duly draw the conclusion that there is nothing substantial from the usual circles of objectors in the face of the 100 million voices of ghosts. KF
:))) What in the world…
@JVL It just depends, society is not automatically right, neither am I automatically right.
I propose an article zero is introduced into the constitution of any country, which defines basic terms like choice, opinion and fact.
That would get rid of socialism, and get rid of most homosexuality, because all of that is based on being clueless about subjectivity, emotions.
Mohammadnursyamsu
Being determined by one’s emotions, like kids often are, unthinking, has not to with (informed) choice. A decision has value in as much as it is an informed decision.
Computers do not make choices, instead they execute algorithms ; this should be common knowledge.
No one can “throw out” his emotions. You seem to think that this is possible. Why is that?
Socialists are “obsessed with objectivity”? Not at all. Socialists are obsessed with protecting their subjectively preferred narrative.
@Origenes The proper idea of emotions is thrown out, in redefining the fundamental meaning of making a choice, in terms of figuring out the best option.
I am not a fool for saying emotions are thrown out, you are the fool for not reading for comprehension. And in such goaldirected ideas of choosing in terms of what is best, emotions are ignored, because they have no place in the logic of it.
And socialists are generally materialists, and materialism solely validates objectivity, facts.
You obviously don’t think about anything, and all what you say is totally worthless because of it. There is just no point in replying to your nonsense.
These kinds of assertive statements that you make about emotions and informed decisons, are pure fantasy. You do not investigate how the logic works in common discourse, you just fantasize how things work, and then you assert your fantasies, and then supposedly I have to deal with your total and utter nonsense with respect.
You are not allowed to fantasize definitions of how subjectivity and objectivity work.
All what is on the side of what makes a choice, is subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion. The worth of a decison is in the agency of the decision, and not in values or whatever. If a decision is made out of courage, or love, then that’s worthwhile.
Mohammadnursyamsu
You keep saying that, but you are sadly mistaken. Materialism ignores the facts.
*Newsflash*: not all emotions point into the same direction. When some emotions are not satisfied by a choice but others are, then it is inaccurate to say, as you do, that emotions “are ignored” or “thrown out”.
@Origenes The existence of any material thing is a matter of fact. Materialism therefore validates the concept of fact. As distinct from the spiritual, which validates the concept of opinion. And creationism, which incorporates both spiritual and material, which therefore validates both opinion and fact.
If the concept of choice is redefined in terms of as like a chesscomputer calculating a move, then there is obviously no role for emotion in that concept of choice. Therefore emotion is thrown out.
And emotion is solely agency of choices, so if you throw out emotion from the concept of choice, then you have thrown out all emotions.
And that is obviously what is happening under the psychological pressure for people to do their best, that the meaning of the concept of choice is corrupted and degenerates into this kind of calculation as like a chesscomputer.
And if you ask people how making a choice works, then you will get answers in terms of figuring out the best, which is the wrong fundamental definition of making a choice. Also in dictionaries, making a choice is defined in terms of figuring out the best option.
And it is proven that this is what happens, because otherwise there would not be any materialists. Because in the correct definition of making a choice, the agency of the choice is subjective and spiritual, and not material and objective.
You are incredibly naive to think that idealism (emotion) plays no role for the materialist. Do I really have to point out the obvious?
“It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
Except for the ignorant, no one redefines a choice in computer terms. So you are arguing a straw man.
Obviously, choices are not only based on emotions. And no, a person cannot throw out “all emotions”. Nobody can.
If you are torn between wanting to eat cookies and not wanting to become fat, and you make a choice one way or the other, than either ‘wanting to eat cookies’ or ‘not wanting to become fat’ is “thrown out”. However, both are emotions, so not “all emotions” are thrown out.
Nonsense. Ppl are manipulated into doing things, because they want to belong, because they want appreciation by a perceived authority. Obviously these are all emotions.
Nonsense. People are materialists for all sorts of emotional reasons. Do you really think that they believe this materialism nonsense because they are “objective” and have “thrown out” all emotions? If so, read the Nagel quote again.
Yes, cancel culture is a concern for everyone.
Jerry/75
An ironic question from an admitted Mad Man given that the advertising industry has little interest in the truth.
But, yes, I admit the truth. Do you even know what truth is?
seversky:
Totally clueless. The only thing being denied is the lying claim that CO2 is to blame for any climate change. The reality is our atmosphere needs MORE CO2 so that agriculture will flourish.
JVL:
Science has already shown us it cannot be CO2. So if it is us it is with the rise in population from 1 billion at the turn of the 19th century to the over 7 billion today.
By answering the question “can same sex partners procreate with their chosen mate?”
ET,
there is no further need to feed side tracks.
MNY et al,
I hope enough is on the table to open up reconsideration of the principle that warrant is key to guiding prudent evaluation of knowledge claims and decisions, where obviously the attempted redefinition of socialism is a failed side track.
JS,
The ghosts of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million victims wish to have a word with you, in hope you would open yourself to reason on the focal issue.
As to trying to project improper cancellation, I have pointed out as thread owner that there is a focal topic of great significance and that your implication shut up and let us drag off into toxic side tracks was and is out of order.
KF
Seversky, truth, from Ari, Metaphysics 1011b, says of what is that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. That is, accurate description of reality. KF
Querius,
Which of course fails to demonstrate that one and the same entity under same circumstances is a circle and simultaneously a square. All you have is that one cross section may be a square and another a circle. Just today I was looking at a drinking glass that is a square [with rounded corners] at bottom and circular at top, similar to how some waste paper baskets play off the same theme.
That said, yes reality can be difficult to understand especially given how we may have conceptual distortions. The Sci Fi work, Flatland, explored that many years ago.
KF
Truth is the accurate description of reality. But, not according to your weltanschauung, which tells us that truth (and admitting the truth) is brain chemistry. And, like everything else, this brain chemistry is the inescapable consequence of things outside your control——laws of nature & events long before you were born.
So, answering a simple question with 12 words is justification for this threat of cancellation? Very telling.
JS, you continue to twist language (cf 72 above, where your “others continue to discuss the issues” is in reality, continue to distract, distort and polarise in the teeth of a matter of first importance given Barna survey results on Millennials), showing the consequences of rejecting first duties of responsible reason. And this too is yet another distraction in the face of the sobering issue of the realities of socialism headlined by the ghosts of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million victims. Beyond a point, such a pattern of toxic needless distraction sends its own message on the main subject. It is obvious the consistent realities of socialism are patently indefensible but inveterate objectors are here to frustrate serious discussion regardless of significance of the issue. That speaks volumes on the consequences of turning backs on first duties of responsible reason, as you have explicitly done. In turn, as the pupil becomes as the teacher, it inadvertently reveals what has gone wrong with academic, education, media, policy and opinion leadership that led to the result Barna headlined. KF
Origenes, you have pointed to the self-referential incoherence that results from evolutionary materialistic scientism. No wonder those influenced by it so often reject first duties of responsible reason and resort to willful distortion, distraction, manipulation and imposition by force of agendas that are irresponsible or outright nihilistic and ruinous. Socialism in aftermath of the collapse of the Iron curtain and related collapse of linked ideas on economic policy and social organisation being one of the clearest examples. And too often, things advocated under green colours of environmentalism turn out to be watermelons, i.e. a green cover for a socialist red substance that returns us to the same failed policies of government domination and bureaucratisation of an economy that predictably chokes on the information problem. But, lawless oligarchy is the natural state of government, power is addictive (and invites corruption), and the undermining of lawfulness rooted in the Ciceronian first duties of reason, are all seductive. KF
PS: As a reminder, duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, fairness and justice etc. These are pervasive in our arguing, even arguments of those trying to object and so manifest first principle character. Inescapable, so inescapably true so self-evident. In this case notice how objectors tried to beat up the messenger, failed to notice he spoke as an eyewitness to even moderate socialism’s economic consequences, turned to toxic distractors and distortions and some now object to pulling back on track. All of this in the face of the ghosts of Milada Horakova and the rest of 100 million victims.
F/N: for those who may wish to go forward with a substantial discussion, I draw attention to 25 above, where specific issues from the previous discussion were cited. As for, oh it’s old news, that is little more that let us forget the past and repeat its errors, leading to the circumstance reported by Barna in his survey of Millennials, “[c]lose to one-half of young adults say they prefer Socialism to Capitalism.” That failure to heed lessons of yet living history speaks for itself, sadly and with force. It is linked to the attitude that shouts, abolish the police [then screams against those who then emerge to defend life and property in the face of burning, looting, mayhem and even murder by mob], rather than seeking sound, incrementally tested, reliable reform. KF
PS: Jerry at 4 above, has a useful clip that can help to frame onward, responsible, rational, on-topic discussion:
PPS: I see some typical inflationist fallacies of projection here,
Where, stagflation due to pumping up aggregate demand in the face of global mismanagement of pandemic and needless constriction of energy sources leading to constraining supply potential may be material factors. Of course, inflation is too much money chasing too few goods so we can ask where the expansion of money supply and/or velocity comes from and where the constraints on production and energy are coming from.
PPPS: Note discussion of stagflation here.
F/N: Overnight, I find it advisable to note that a cylinder that would fit within a cube — height is equal to diameter of its round side — is plainly not a circle-square. The circular and squarish aspects are different, relating to two differing cross sections. The vertical, rectangular one, is not the horizontal, circular one, and the resulting square is a square whilst the resulting circle is a circle. Neither of these is a distinct object exhibiting features of both; instead, the cylinder is an example of a kind of superposition and synthesis that creates a third distinct entity using properties of circles and squares. The point remains, that a distinct A is itself, A, i/l/o its core compossible characteristics, as a matter of logic of being. KF
@Origenes You failed to address the evidence that dictionaries define choosing in terms of figuring out the best option.
Why do you disregard the crucial evidence?
And in artificial intelligence they commonly talk about as like a chesscomputer it being a decision. And Dennett says that a thermostat is making decisions, although he also says that people are not ready to hear that “truth”.
My theory about socialism works out perfectly, and it’s got the evidence. It provides a strong psychological motive for socialism.
Sure even the people who throw emotions out on the intellectual level, still acknowledge emotions on a common discourse level. That is obvious. The creationist logic is inherent in common discourse, and unavoidable to a large extent.
So this Nagel talks about not liking things, but the government he supports would generally use science to establish what product is good, and disregard free market liking products.
Logic dictates that what makes a choice can only be subjective, meaning it can only be identified with a chosen opinion.
Emotions, personal character, the soul, the spirit, God, are all in this category on the side of what makes a choice.
You appear to not use logic, rules, but instead you appear to fantasize whatever you want, about what the agency of a choice is.
Courage, cowardice, love, hate, soul, spirit, God, these are all possible answers to a question of who, or what, made a decision turn out A instead of B.
@KF You could say both opinions and facts need warranting, but it is totally different procedures for subjectivity and objectivity.
And you still fail to substantially support subjectivity with logic.
So that you put subjectivity and objectivity in one box of warranting, has led you to favor objectivity, and disregard the rules for subjectivity.
Mohammadnursyamsu @
Figuring out the best option does not imply “throwing out all emotions.” However it does imply not blindly acting upon the very first emotion that presents itself.
People also talk about the sun choosing not to shine. Inaccurate use of words. Computers do not make decisions, instead they execute algorithms.
Dennett really? Dennett saying that a thermostat is making decisions is obviously insane, but, in his defense, he has made far more outrageous statements than that.
Nope, emotions motivates people to become socialists and/or materialists.
Are you talking about Joe Biden?
Irony is when someone says it is irony that they claim they don’t tell the truth and then provide no truth statement but only a non sensical insult.
I take that as a no
You are welcome to challenge any claim I make for truth value. Can you say the same thing and respond to claims you are not admitting the truth? If you do, that would take the discussions to a new level.
Aside: advertising is one of the many things I have done. I learned a lot about humans while in advertising, both the customers, the clients, the people in the business and those that oppose it.
Every bit of advertising I was involved with had to go through lawyers for vetting the truth of any claim. For health claims it also went through an outside agency that was quite adversarial.
Now given that, a lot of the claims did take advantage of consumer ignorance and would emphasize minutiae claims as if they were important. Also there was an eternal search for ways of improving one’s products so as to provide a new benefit or a better experience. And yes, more effective advertising.
@Origenes You revert to meaningless naysaying. I have got great evidence.
To make a choice in terms of what is best, does not throw out emotions, but to fundamentally define making a choice in terms of what is best, does throw out all emotions. As can be proven with logic that the emotions are thrown out, if choice is defined in terms of what is best.
You seem not to grasp this nuanced distinction between defining choice in terms of what is best, and choice in terms of what is best as being a complicated way of choosing, based on the fundamental definition of choice in terms of spontaneity.
To define choice in terms of what is best is incorrect, but to choose in terms of what is best is valid.
My theory also perfectly explains why communists are atheists, and why nazis objectify personal character as scientific fact.
The communists as being scientific socialists, they have thrown out the subjective human spirit from the concept of choice. So then if you throw out the subjective human spirit, then why not throw God the holy spirit out as well?
And the nazis being socialists, they accept the word spirit, but their whole movement is based on objectifying this spirit in terms of racial science. And that nazis are preoccupied in terms inferior v superior, is deravitive of the worse and better options in a choice.
So you can see a general pattern of denial of the entire subjective part of reality, proceeding from defining choice in terms of what is best.
And your own acceptance of the subjective part of reality is also absent / weak, precisely because you define making a choice in terms of what is best.
Mohammadnursyamsu
At this point we do not have a conversation. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Kairosfocus,
A square can be assembled from four equal segments of the same circle of infinite radius.
Four equal-length lines projected onto a small sphere is by definition a square but appear as a circle.
One can argue that a square has fillets of radius 0 at each corner and a circle is a square with fillets of radius = 1/2 the length of a side of a square. Thus, squares and circles belong to the same subset of all geometric objects, “square-circles” ™.
Yes, exactly my point. This difficulty, along with philosophical arguments, is not dissimilar to Plato’s allegory of the cave.
Well said! The same sort of mass hysteria occurred during Napoleonic times, Soviet Communism, Italian Fascism, and the current American Fascism being promoted as “socialism.”
-Q
@Origenes I did my homework. I defined words, and defined them in accordance with the logic used in common discourse.
You can chew on it that there exists a (wrong) definition of making a choice that does not incorporate emotions, and there exists a definition that does incorporate (subjective) emotions.
Are there any socialist policies that people here support? Universal healthcare? Paid maternity leave? Unemployment insurance? Paid tuition? Subsidized public transit? Mandatory vacation pay? Increased banking regulations? A minimum wage? Social security? Welfare?
Nothing you mention are socialist policies. They are welfare state policies.
Apparently you do not understand socialism and economics.
Maybe you should ask questions about it instead.
The policies you list all seem wonderful till one asks how are they to be paid for. Where does the money to pay for these freebies come from?
Many would disagree with you.
From tax payers. Same as other government funded programs.
As I said you do not understand what you are talking about.
The welfare state is not socialism.
Paying for the welfare state is always the issue with its own problems. It is asking for one group of people to work harder than another group so that the latter group does not have to work as hard.
Why don’t you read a book on socialism. I suggest Muravchik.
Querius,
I could say, show us a circle of infinite radius, but that would be superfluous. Instead, I simply note that an arc with infinite radius of curvature is another way to say, straight line.
A Rhombus bound by four equal length straight lines with one vertex 90 degrees is a square, and it is not a circle.
Again, there are no circle squares, as the requisites of circularity and those of squareness are not mutually compossible.
The issue is one of logic of being, tied to distinct identity. A is itself, in light of its distinct characteristics.
The fact that an exchange is being made to undermine this, shows just how broken our thinking now is, due to how we have been misled by those who should have taught us better. Even our ability to make meaningful communication and carry out digital computing required for this thread pivots on said principle. It is pervasive, inescapable, inescapably true and it is our duty to respect it, if we are to be rational.
KF
Joe Schooner @111,
The problems with all of these “socialist” services is when the government is extremely inept, inefficient, and large.
Universal Healthcare – you’ll get one FREE band-aid twice a year after standing in line for six hours and filling out 8 pages of forms. Each band-aid costs the government $24.
Paid Maternity Leave – Sure, but it’s not free–the money comes from somewhere and you either pay higher taxes, the employer pays you less, or a combination.
Unemployment Insurance – When I once had to file for unemployment (after paying a ton of money into the system), I was shocked how little I received. The old term for unemployment insurance was “savings.” Of course, the government right now is robbing everyone of their savings in the form of inflation.
Paid Tuition – A giant subsidy for academia. It’s paid by your grandparents, your parents, you, your children, and your grandchildren at a double or triple the cost. The joke’s on you.
Subsidized Public Transportation – In our area public transportation is evidenced by virtually empty buses and trains (I was one of the few who commuted on buses and trains for many years). The schedule was reasonably reliable, but the light rail had frequent breakdowns.
Mandatory vacation pay – How’s this socialist? Companies that don’t provide vacation days (or lunch time) won’t be able to hold onto their employees. They’ll simply quit, take their vacation, and start at a different company. That’s why America encourages illegal migration as a source of cheap, off-the-books labor and, magically, Congress has not been able to reform immigration regardless of which party is in power. Imagine that!
Increased Banking Regulations – Again, how is regulation socialist? Also, in the U.S. many regulatory agencies have been “captured’ by the industries they’re supposed to regulate.
Minimum Wage – See Mandatory Vacation Pay above.
Social Security – Privatized Social Security investment would be far more efficient. Do the math. You’d probably be able to have twice as much if you saved it
Welfare – Whatever you tax, you get less of; whatever what you subsidize, you get more of. I’d think that people receiving public welfare should show their gratitude by working a guaranteed job in public service–cleaning up the environment, removing graffiti, scrubbing sidewalks, etc. There’s a good book on the subject called “Victorian Compassion” IIRC. However, I thought the Victorians we’re too punitive, but they had some good ideas. In contrast, I was able to find out many years ago that in the metro area that I lived in 90% of the cost of welfare was consumed by its administration.
-Q
Jerry vs JS:
The point is, of course, that all modern states have social welfare policies and such policies, within prudent limits, are compatible with lawful state, free enterprise, market based economic organisation. The problem is to sustain long term reasonable affordability, in face of pressure to resort to inflationism the tax on the future that ruins the macroeconomy.
The distinctly socialist attitude is the notion that the state acting as representative of that abstraction, the people; of right should monopolise the economy explicitly or implicitly, and therefore centralised planning of the economy, bypassing the market or crippling it through fatal distortions. This leads to the information choking and problem of value that von Mises highlighted in the 1920’s and was fully vindicated in the 1980’s as the collapse loomed.
The rhetoric behind state monopolisation varies, it used to be more directly class warfare pivoting on the discredited, inherently incoherent labour theory of value that refused to acknowledge certain key services, portraying them as oppressive parasitism. Now, that myth of systemic oppression and liberation of the oppressed has broadened, first by the fascists who targetted nation or race typically as the pivot of oppression and crisis, with the superman above law political messiah as rescuer. Ironically, so called critical race theory, a form of cultural marxism exhibits much of the same fascist pattern. Complete with red guard street thugs protected by state apparatus. Similar patterns extend to any number of critical theories spread across the academy and extending into policy, to ruinous effect.
All of these, seek to dissolve the BATNA of lawfulness which defends core rights anchored to our inherent, built in nature and tied to associated duties elaborated from the first duties of reason. The end is sliding into lawless, ideological oligarchy and associated nihilism.
That is the warning of Milada Horakova (falsely convicted of treasonous uprising and executed by torture by rope) and the rest of 100 million victims of such ideologies in power over the past 100 years.
Again, we need to hear from the yet living eyewitnesses.
KF
Oh, and how about socialized education? Please watch the documentary, “Waiting for Superman.” It will break your heart (as it did mine).
For an alternative, consider privatizing all education along the model of a doctor’s or a dentist’s offices.
Currently, states are funding education somewhere around $10,000 – $20,000+ depending on which state you’re in. Let’s say it’s $15,000 and you have 30 students in your class. That’s $450,000 to start with.
But you’d need to pay your own salary (the average High School Teacher salary in the United States is $62,901 as of October 29, 2021,), rent a classroom, pay for group health insurance and liability insurance, rent classroom furniture, books, facility maintenance, utilities, and contribute to the cost of hiring a senior and a junior office manager and an accountant assuming 10-20 teachers in your school.
The same model works at a college level. I bet you could easily double your take-home pay! The average College Professor salary in the United States is $158,643 as of October 29, 2021.
Notice that students would be able to “fire” underperforming instructors by not signing up with them.
Do the math for your area and see whether I’m right.
-Q
All the freebies/benefits from the Welfare State would not exist in a socialist economy because there would not be enough production to feed and clothe the people. Sounds nice but things besides fruits do not grow on trees. People have to work hard to produce them.
But robots are coming. They have their own problems.
The Scandinavian countries are not socialist countries. Sweden is actually a freer economy than is the US. My guess is that those who say they support socialism have no idea about economics. It just sounds good to them.
And they believe small homogeneous economies are socialist because they have generous benefits. They never point to a large economy with several cultures within.
@Joe Schooner Socialism such as nazism and communism, is not a rational proposition. It is only interesting as an ideological dysfunction.
Socialism is not one of many different opinions that you may agree or disagree with. Socialism undermines the concept of a personal opinion.
Jerry, the largest example of an explicitly “Socialist” polity and economy with wide cultural diversity was one certain . . . Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, CCCP in Cyrillic. Not exactly a great exemplar of long term viability and lawful freedom. KF
PS: I suspect ignorance of sound economics is rather widespread including some who have studied it. Here is my quick and dirty macro-oriented, Austrian approach — Roger Garrison’s PPF and Hayek triangle with loanable funds market framework — tutorial (which I know to have been helpful), with a link to a for dummies. Note, this helps us understand saturation of an economy and how stagflation can arise.
PPS: ponder on so-called green malinvestment and implications.
Sewer systems, wastewater treatment, recycling, atmospheric discharge treatment, laws around the handling of dangerous goods, sustainable farming practices, regulations on automobile efficiency and exhaust limits, and restrictions on the sale of endangered species are all “green malinvestments”, and are all counter to the free market system.
A truly free market system has been shown to be very dangerous. Our market is a balance between the desires of the company owners and the welfare of the people.
If the policies mentioned at 111 are not socialist, as Jerry claims, why is the socialist boogeyman raised whenever they are brought up.
Companies and people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does no harm to others, or the benefits to everyone far outweigh the harms., and the harms can be mitigated.
When someone is in a hole, they should stop digging. I have been studying economics for over 30 years and have read widely. So someone who obviously knows nothing is now an expert.
Certain activities are best solved collectively but this does not mean the collective owns and operates what they set up. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.
It’s called the problem of the commons or the problem of shared resources or shared problems. So sewage is a good example. Usually it is funded collectively and mostly handled by a government organization but sometimes outside private organizations run the facilities. For roads neatly all the major projects are done by private organizations but paid for by the collective.
One of the things the collective does is implement what has worked someplace else, another collective or a solution by a private organization. There are corporations that specialize in sewage and waste treatment and their solutions are often sold to the collective. Similarly for nearly every activity a collective performs. For example, nearly every collective has an IT operation that uses the products and services of private corporations.
Hayek recommended a system of providing security for the unfortunate and he is the epitome of advocating free market economies. So social security is not necessarily a socialist activity, it’s a wealth distribution.
It’s the Welfare State bogeyman that is at play and mainly the arrogant assumption that a few smart people know what’s best.
Again I suggest you ask questions instead of providing irrelevant examples.
There is a supply/demand curve and both sides need to be free for it to be a free market. Both sides should believe they have gotten a good deal. Obviously harm to one side is not a free market.
For those interested- how did this get published – see following link – about the ineptitude of the Democrats and their form of government, by a New York Times editor and another journalist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw
Jerry, do you think that Biden’s Buy American order is appropriate? If so, why? If not, why not?
Or, to focus the discussion, maybe KF can relay two or three of the most dangerous policies being implemented, or recently implemented.
I didn’t know that Biden had such a plan. No harm in that unless the difference is substantial. It was a Trump plan too. However, we went from energy independent to begging for good oil deals from others in less than a year.
We buy a lot of products from outside the US. For example, clothing and a lot of electronics. Both countries benefit. It creates a more stable world.
However, buying in the US has expanded benefits as these purchase will help fund local financing of other goods and services. At the moment the nation has a labor shortage and does not need stimulus. So what’s all the stimulus money for?
————-
For another article on the failure of the left by left writers. This time on C19 policy.
https://unherd.com/2021/11/the-lefts-covid-failure/
Why anyone would vote for a Democrat is beyond me. If they didn’t control the press, they would have trouble electing a dog catcher. Republicans are not the greatest but they are light years better than Democrats.
By the way, Build Back Better sounds almost identical to Make America Great Again.
Thanks Jerry. What people think about specific infringements on the free market system is a good way to focus discussion.
Free markets are great for those with the wherewithal to participate, not so great for those that can’t.
For example there is a market for Rolls-Royce cars – if you have the money. I don’t so, for me, the market might as well not exist.
The free market system certainly does have advantages but it is certainly not a “silver-bullet” solution for all of societies woes.
More seriously, the private health system in the US can provide excellent care, as I can personally attest, again if you can afford it. But one of the reasons it can provide such high-quality care to those that can afford it is that it disburdened itself of having provide care for 45 million of the poorest and neediest Americans. It priced them right out of the market.
The UK’s National Health Service has problems in terms of shortages of finance, resources and staff but, again as I can attest, a British citizen that needs a procedure costing hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars will get it, without having to show up front they can pay for it or risk being turned away by the hospital. An artificial joint that may cost a few hundred to manufacture does not have a price-tag of tens of thousands by the time it gets to the patient in hospital. Nobody in the UK goes bankrupt as a result of unforeseen medical expenses.
So which is it to be?
“The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”
— John Kenneth Galbraith
Again, this is not about rational issues. Rational issues are complicated, have many aspects, and it requires a hodgepodge of all kinds of wisdom, knowledge, to deal with it.
Socialism destroys that hodgepodge of common sense to deal with issues, to replace common sense with something random, like critical race theory.
The psychology of socialism is to calculate the best result of a choice, using some kind of formula. So then critical race theory is one such formula to calculate policy with. These critical race theorists, use critical race theory, in all their decisionmaking. Instead of using common sense, the hodgepodge.
So the real meaning of socialism is to replace the free subjective human spirit making decisions, with some kind of formulaic, calculated way of making decisions.
Until the unleash of the free market economy in the 1700’s first partially in England and then in the English colonies there was little economic growth since records were kept. There were some advancements for the ruling class but not the common person.
Then in the early 1800’s economic gdp started growing exponentially. To say it is not perfect as many malcontents are prone to do is to belie the great changes for the better that has taken place for the common man.
If someone has something better, propose it and see if there is any evidence to support their opinion. My guess there isn’t any or else they would have already done so.
The best system is a regulated and taxed free market system. Where the controversy arises is how it is regulated and how it is taxed.
JS, your self-disclosed fundamental irrationality and disregard for moral government of reason towards truth, right reason, warrant, justice etc have been duly noted and so further comment on matters you raise is for record. At length, you have been forced to acknowledge “[t]he best system is a regulated and taxed free market system. Where the controversy arises is how it is regulated and how it is taxed.” Unhappily worded, the issue is lawful, free enterprise, market based economic organisation and a community culture that buttresses lawful liberty, where government is not the centre of the economic universe. It provides services that in the main support the civil peace of justice, providing a common core of services towards the good . . . or, at least, it should. This is the context in which we are reminded of the underlying issue highlighted by Barna, that “[c]lose to one-half of young adults say they prefer socialism to capitalism,” reflecting that they have been badly misled by academic, educational, media and political leadership in ways that potentially destabilise the requisites of a sound economic organisation. Which is the reason for the above OP, a lecture towards correction of some of the errors that have become dangerously prevalent. KF
Seversky (attn Jerry), Rolls Royce may be more relevant than we think, as a main business has long been manufacture of engines. Seventy or eighty years ago, the Merlin series literally saved the world, starting with the Spitfire and the more abundant Hurricane in 1940, where too, even the P51 had a licence built Merlin. Since then, Rolls Royce jet engines have been a major factor in mass air transport. Yes, the luxury car market may be a limited market, but it was a context for developing that engine production competitive advantage. KF
Jerry,
the issue is a disguised computer architecture, information processing problem [as I once argued in a letter to a leading newspaper in my native land 30 years back].
Economics is about allocation of scarce resources across competing uses, leading to the opportunity cost principle. That is, the true cost of a resource R used in a “best” option X, is the neighbouring next best option foregone, X’. I use neighbouring to highlight that this is a possible, neighbouring worlds problem. In that context, markets emerge as means by which potential users bid for the resources and suppliers bid to provide same.
The supply-demand-price-quantity schedule X-graph emerges, defining equilibrium for R. The natural market price emerges at the equilibrium intersection of S and D vs P and Q. This extends across a great many resources, goods, services, ideas etc, with of course work as forced ordered motion requiring energy sources and technologies as a key infrastructure, so too, transportation and communication networks. Money is a general good acting as medium of exchange, [imperfect!] yardstick and store of value. Where, as there are constraints, there is a tendency of economies to saturate along a production possibilities frontier, which also leads to oscillatory behaviour, with quasi-periodic business cycles of various periods most famously the 8 – 11 year one. But we should not overlook the Kondratiev/Schumpeter long wave tied to generational changes in basic productive factors, 30 – 70 years. (See my short summary here.)
In that context, it can be shown that there is a general, macro equilibrium as the markets interact in a matrix, the Leontief analysis and linked tabulation of economic sectors yielding GDP as a measure of annual value added emerge. The point is, we are dealing with millions to billions of direct and indirect interactions in a dynamic, rapidly changing system subject to local, regional and global shocks, which is massively nonlinear.
Attempted centralised command and control processing of the grand system then fairly obviously leads directly to information choking and unreliability/perishability of valuations, breaking the system’s ability to reach near equilibrium. Which is precisely what led to collapse of the socialist bloc in the 1980’s.
Instead, leaving the planning in the main to firms and families acting through free markets in a lawful state is far more robust, with of course some provision of safety nets and government as a key but limited player.
This is what has been subverted by those academics who shut their eyes to what happened in the years leading up to 1989 – 91.
KF
It has already been pointed out that there is no consensus on what socialism means. The survey question was not specific and as such any results from it are suspect. It is highly likely that the millennials were thing in regards to what they perceived to be socialist policies. Things like universal health care, paid maternity leave, paid sick days, mandatory vacation pay, higher minimum wage, possibly gun control, higher (ie fair) taxes for the rich, and so on.
You are using the results of a flawed survey to erect your own personal strawman. For the record.
Here are some traits of millennials that KF conveniently overlooks:
-> tech savvy
-> family-oriented
-> achievement oriented
-> socially conscious
-> ethically diverse and optimistic
-> embrace experiences and ethical spending
-> educated and knowledgeable
-> health conscious
-> spiritually conscious
-> embrace a work-life balance
-> they collaborate and cooperate
-> donate more to charity
-> tolerant of different cultures and lifestyles.
In spite of their faults, as all generations have faults, the western world will benefit from their emergence into levels of authority.
JS, there is more than enough evidence, starting with the history of the past 170 years, to identify what “Socialism” is and invites, or predictably leads to. The attempt addressed by D’Souza, to suggest that Scandinavia is an example, manifestly fails by willful confusion of social welfare provisions for socialist statism, command-control of economy and linked political messianism tied to attempted tainting of lawful state free enterprise market based economic and social organisation; where provisions for welfare are ancient, just read Lev 19:9 – 18, the context for that central ethical principle you have dismissed (as it is part of the first duties of responsible reason) “love thy neighbour as thyself.” We also can see for ourselves from the current culture form marxism push and its so-called critical theories [which are all too prevalent in the academy and are influencing education, media, policy, law and government], what socialism would mean in context — Frankfurt School and derived variant, culture form Marxism, which from the sort of dirty colour revolution tactics and state protected red guards trying to impose mob rule and destruction — is plain. Just, “abolish the police” is sufficient to show the fundamental lawlessness and anti civilisational character. So, prentended ignorance as to what is meant, is answered by facts on the ground and so stands exposed as so much evasive rhetorical squid ink. KF
Are you honestly suggesting that the majority of millennials responding to that survey are in favor of “socialist statism, command-control of economy and linked political messianism tied to attempted tainting of lawful state free enterprise market based economic and social organisation”? Only someone with a preconceived opinion would draw this conclusion from a question that only gives the options of capitalism and socialism.
Is there another option that should have been included?
Both capitalism and socialism have many variants.
We have established that millennials are I’ll informed when they say they endorse socialism. What else are they I’ll informed on? The next demographic group after millennials are probably more I’ll informed as they overwhelmingly voted for Biden.
By the way most people are generally I’ll informed. Hans Rosling discovered the more educated one was, the less they knew about the world. Maybe it’s because they are taught untruths in educational institutions.
Certainly we know this is true relevant for Evolution.
Jerry, it is 18 – 40 Barna used, so it includes those who voted. KF
JS, we can make a pretty good inference from the current political pushes in the USA, as was noted. You neatly side stepped that in order to project preconception on my part. KF
Then they are definitely Ill informed.
The usual breakdowns are different but his will do.
F/N, as the particular form of Capitalism involved in the US is mixed economy, welfare, more or less lawful state, with sometimes over regulated but generally fairly free enterprise and is market based, it is fairly obvious that the sort of Socialism being advocated is quite radical. KF
PS: Is there any advocacy for mercantilism, feudalism or a classical slave state?
Re JS: As was noted in the prior thread, the advocacy of socialism as opposed to Capitalism (given context) is a huge red flag as it has potentially ruinous implications for civilisation and indicts those who have shaped ideas, education, media, policy and opinion leadership since 1990. That has to be settled as of first urgency. KF
Without a clear idea of what they mean by capitalism and socialism, drawing any conclusion from the response to a survey would be misleading.
Both terms carry the baggage of the evils conducted in the name of each.
Erecting a strawman over the outcome of a poorly designed survey because it corresponds to your “end-is-nigh” narrative does not make it any more accurate
They should have surveyed specific aspects of the socialism/capitalism question, with more nuanced options. For example:
How would you prefer healthcare to be delivered?
A) an unregulated privately run healthcare system with no taxpayer funding.
B) a regulated privately run healthcare system with no taxpayer funding.
C) a government regulated and taxpayer funded health care system, operated by the private sector.
D) a healthcare system that is fully operated by government and funded by taxpayers.
Similar questions could be asked about the different aspects of capitalism vs socialism. In this way you could draw a more accurate conclusion about how millennials actually feel about the issue. The only thing you could conclude about the question that was asked is that a majority of millennials are not happy with how the economy is being run. Not surprising given 2008 and other economic/financial news over the last couple decades.
@Joe Schooner More of your charade, where you propose socialism as being a legitemate option, instead of a dysfunctional ideology.
Let us ignore the holocaust, and Uygur and Tibetan genocidal policies, and look at the economic aspects of socialist politics.
It’s ridiculous to regard socialism as other than a dysfunctional ideology.
We can see that the current generation socialits in politics, mostly generation X I guess, is already a big fan of authoritarianism, censorship, political persecution by the government.
It’s totally disgusting, they are already beyond redemption. They are beyond friendship, to have a personal relationship with them, because of their joky support for political persecution, like it’s the funniest thing in the world.
It is a trend that is only getting worse with the millenial socialists.
It is the total stupidity of people who are clueless about anything subjective.
On facebook there are all the fact obsessed people demanding evidence for God, or God is thrown out. Which means they throw out anything that is subjective, because it is not objective.
So they throw out God, but they also throw out love, because love is subjective as well. Or, rather they throw out the subjective love, and then objectify love, as something that can be measured, and calculated.Totally pathological, mental disorder, mental illness.
And actually that ignorance about subjectivity, it is the fault of all the phony creationists / intelligent design proponents, to not properly teach the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, as they are inherently creationist concepts.
MN
Hmm. there was a proposal for socialism? Can you link to it.
JS, sufficient is on the table to specify what type of capitalism is on the table and by dint of the sharp rejection and what is being pushed as socialism including by street and policy action, the radical nature of the socialism in question is also fairly clear. Where refusal to reckon with 89 – 91 properly speaks further volumes, We weren’t born yesterday and we have seen radical agit prop before. KF
PS: Government takeover of what 1/8 of the economy intersecting with employment so some 2/3 of the economy is a case that falls under information choking and value disintegration.
Jerry, the misinformation is deep, widespread and willful given the magnitude of the collapse of the socialist bloc 89 – 91, within living memory with hundreds of millions of surviving eyewitnesses. That is why we need to highlight this as a key case of debasement of mind in our civilisation. A matter not unrelated to the central concerns of UD. KF
No. What is on the table is your very detailed definition of capitalism and socialism against a poorly designed survey question.
Details please.
JS, we were not born yesterday. The USA is the leading Capitalist country, with a more or less lawful, free enterprise market economy with a welfare state and a significant government sector. The Socialists in question have been on the attack, characterising that as wholly illegitimate, using marxist, culture and dirty colour revolution tactics [cf adaptation of a SOCOM chart and the McFaul list in the OP as updated] which include things like the global racism thesis, the white supremacism thesis [after 60+ years of largely successful policy to marginalise racism], the stolen land thesis [essentially all lands on earth have been fought over, conquered and reconquered], the “right wing” nazism/fascism accusation [actually, variants of socialism], the push to abolish police [outright anti-civilisational!] and more, including allowing a very vocal “squad” of radicals and openly marxist movements to drive policy agendas, not to mention suppressing the substance and significance of the collapse of the socialist bloc in 89 – 91. Such clearly defines what sort of socialism is involved as exceedingly radical, totalitarian and essentially lawless as well as intellectually grossly dishonest. So, the pretence that sufficient “definition”/”detail” is absent fails and is simply a case of hyperskeptical resistance to unwelcome exposure. The reality is, the intellectual classes, the academy, the dominant media, major policy shapers and opinion leaders have willfully refused to face the lessons from 89 – 91 and so have betrayed duty to civilisation, earning the title addressed to the radical Jacobins after 1789 on led to the terror: misanthropes. KF
PS: Sufficient was said to identify scale of health sector, ~1/8 of economy and direct regulatory impact on employment where labour is ~ 2/3 GDP. the direct import of leverage over so much of the economy is centralised bureaucratised control, leading to the information choking and perishability of value information to solve the resource allocation problem first identified in the literature by von Mises in the ’20’s and demonstrated to be a driving factor in collapse of the socialist bloc 89 – 91. See 136 above.
PPS: I add a food for thought clip from Howard Hyde at AT, “When Everyone’s a White Supremacist, No One Is” in which he speaks to:
Extend to any and all other culture form marxist oppressor/victim dichotomies and the linked issue of dirty form culture/colour revolution and power backed red guards attacking targets to impose mob rule by riot, arson and mayhem.
@Joe Schooner I don’t know what you are saying, you present capitalism and socialism as 2 options in a choice, do you not?
PPPS: Do I need to speak to exploitation of a mismanaged pandemic to push vaccine cards used as loyalty tests and discriminatory policies with QR code based surveillance and control? Do I need to point to digital drivers licence pushes that overlap? Do I need to say “no man could buy or sell, save . . .”? He who would control and surveil the economy to the point where basic consumption can be blocked at will is a misanthrope and menace to civilisation.
F/N: To show the depth of manipulation, let me clip further from Barna’s report:
And:
Notice, the significant negative reaction to democracy, i.e. by context big-C Constitutional, modern representational democracy? (The UK has a small-c constitution, a framework of Govt but no actual declared Constitution, by contrast. In principle any act of parliament can be of constitutional character, a huge flaw dependent on a tradition of restraint.)
This can be coupled to socialism and the comparative reaction to that term and to capitalism. That there is not a great warmth to socialism even as it is preferred reflects the toxic polarised dishonest climate in which they have formed their views. They should not be ignorant of what socialism is about, nor should they be vulnerable to the inevitably tiny hard core of radicals running about. And yes Lenin and co were a tiny hard core. Oh that fatal train ride across Germany that took Lenin to Russia.
What we are seeing is a signature of the cultivation of fatal disaffection, designed to undermine the strength of conviction required to resist the radicals. The disaffection from Constitutional democracy reflects a particularly destructive breakdown, as the historically anchored spectrum in the OP shows, the real alternative is via breakdown of the BATNA of lawfulness, slide into lawless ideological oligarchy. Most likely dominated by open or disguised culture form marxists.
With ruinous consequences.
KF
KF
The objective some commenters seems to be just to be contrary and nothing more. They offer nothing substantive.
They will dwell on minutiae and nit pick. And pick on certain other commenters.
A common technique by the nit pickers is take part of a comment and ignore the rest. Then act as if this highly excerpted phrase is the position to be debated or as often done used to attack.