Dinesh D’Souza on socialism:

_{kairosfocus
November 21, 2021

Defending our Civilization, Geo-strategic issues, Lessons of History, rhetoric

1}_{Categories
Defending our Civilization
Geo-strategic issues
Lessons of History
rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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

Comments

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST}

right-wing
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_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PST}

#25: Kairosfocus
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.
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.chuckdarwin_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PST}

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.
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.jerry_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PST}

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.Joe Schooner_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PST}

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.kairosfocus_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PST}

F/N: Plato's warning is apt:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin"), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
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.kairosfocus_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PST}

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. KFkairosfocus_{November 22, 2021
November
11
Nov
22
22
2021
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PST}

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. -QQuerius_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PST}

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.
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.Joe Schooner_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PST}

UB, sobering considerations, and on a topic that is always relevant at UD. KFkairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PST}

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.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST}

. Sev@22
I hope that, eventually, we can find a better way but I’m not optimistic.
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?Upright BiPed_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

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:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
We here see the absurd follies that stem from dismissing our built-in moral government pivoting on first duties of responsible reason.kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

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:
within living memory of those of us who were of age to notice, between 1989 and 1991, Marxism’s credibility as a principle of economic organisation collapsed before our eyes. So, if the immediately following generation does not understand such after its seventy years of chaos, tyranny, state led murder of over 100 millions and outright economic failure, we are dealing with a generation that were deliberately misled by ideologues who cared not a whit for that horrific track record. One that is actually worse than that of Communism’s kissing cousin, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi, for short). (And yes, they meant the “Socialist.”) So, first and foremost we are dealing with a deeply manipulated generation robbed of objective truth about pivotal worldview, policy, history, ideology and personal matters. That indicts at least two to three full generations of intellectual, policy, media and educational leaders and influencers . . .
At 96, I noted:
Marxism has been repackaged and promoted [--> often under labels of various commonly seen "Critical Theories," so-called] using Frankfurt School and Gramsci-derived techniques [--> Gramsci was a co-founder of the Italian Communist Party], that Capitalism has been framed as a grave evil and that what is reasonably advocated, free market enterprise in a lawful state has been sidelined and painted in lurid colours that often refuse to recognise its achievements and the verdict of 1989 – 91. Besides, Scandinavian states are cases of high tax welfare states not of socialist ones. Further to all this, no responsible educator — formal or informal — could ignore the empirical verdict of history 30 years ago.
Then, at 156:
a basic definition is in order, here, Investopedia:
What Is Capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system in which private individuals or businesses own capital goods. The production of goods and services is based on supply and demand in the general market—known as a market economy—rather than through central planning—known as a planned economy or command economy. The purest form of capitalism is free market or laissez-faire capitalism. Here, private individuals are unrestrained. They may determine where to invest, what to produce or sell, and at which prices to exchange goods and services. The laissez-faire marketplace operates without checks or controls. Today, most countries practice a mixed capitalist system that includes some degree of government regulation of business and ownership of select industries. 2:05 Capitalism Understanding Capitalism Functionally speaking, capitalism is one process by which the problems of economic production and resource distribution might be resolved. Instead of planning economic decisions through centralized political methods, as with socialism or feudalism, economic planning under capitalism occurs via decentralized and voluntary decisions.
The premise here is the mutually beneficial economic exchange. The baker prefers the cash with built in contribution margin to holding the perishable loaf, the consumer is willing to pay the price to get a fresh loaf of bread. Later on, the value of the loaf is lower as it becomes stale. The same obtains for the mass of information required to real-time plan an economy centrally, and the implication is, the central planning or state domination effort fails due to information chaos and choking. By having families and firms plan locally and interact through markets with the state defending the lawful civil peace of justice, we have a more robust and flexible, rapid framework for planning. one that automatically includes markets for innovation and investment. It is no mystery why lawful, free market enterprise with distributed, stakeholder planning interacting through markets shielded by the lawful state will in the long run outperform other seemingly plausible schemes. And it is no surprise that those with an over-inflated notion of their wisdom and capacity will resent the implication that no, they cannot successfully plan an economy and society as they cannot know enough, fast enough and how fast to respond consistently. Where, value is locked away in many minds, who see opportunities and risks that will never occur to a cabal of central planning Commissars. Now, we can speak of market failures, safety cushions etc, but must balance against the doctrine of ignorance/information choking and unintended consequences of central intervention. So, there must be responsible balance, which starts with recognising that capitalism does not equal robber baronism. Then we can proceed to draw lessons the ghosts of 100 million victims and the survivors have to tell us about what happened from 1917 to 1991. When we face these truths, we can then proceed to a sounder future.
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:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved. [--> Hence, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, USSR, CCCP in Russian Cyrillic letters]
I contrast Wikipedia:
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy [--> halo word, ideology is better warranted] encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and democratic control [-->twisted halo language] , such as workers' self-management of enterprises [--> using the fringe case to be primary example, state run centralised control dominated by a Socialist Party and its Central Committee is the main case in point].[8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public [--> twisted language], collective, cooperative, or of equity [--> twisted language].[11] While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.[1][13][14] Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favouring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[8][15]
kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PST}

JS, the POINT of core rights is that they are inherent to the individual and are antecedent to state action.
Claiming this is not the same as proving it.
Lawful states RECOGNISE but do not “grant” rights.
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.Joe Schooner_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PST}

Kairosfocus @21,
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.
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? -QQuerius_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PST}

Joe Schooner/17
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.
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.Seversky_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PST}

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:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [--> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15; note, law as "the highest reason," per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [--> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [--> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
kairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PST}

JS, you confuse rights with entitlements.
Can you name a right that has not been granted by the society in question?Joe Schooner_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PST}

#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-collegechuckdarwin_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PST}

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 diagramskairosfocus_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PST}

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.Joe Schooner_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PST}

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."Fasteddious_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PST}

Jerry, How about a shootout between any comments that follow? O.o -QQuerius_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PST}

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_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PST}

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. -QQuerius_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST}

Chuckdarwin/10
Jerry I nominate the person who thinks “most stupidest” is proper usage…..
Seconded!Seversky_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST}

From Wikipedia,
Types of socialism

Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and organizational self-management of enterprises[8][9] as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism.[10] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity[11] in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole.[12] There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them,[13] but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[1][14][15] Socialists disagree about the degree to which social control or regulation of the economy is necessary, how far society should intervene, and whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change.[16] As a term, socialism represents a broad range of theoretical and historical socioeconomic systems and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating a variety of socialism types.[10] Socialist economic systems can be further divided into market and non-market forms.[17] The first type of socialism utilize markets for allocating inputs and capital goods among economic units. In the second type of socialism, planning is utilized and include a system of accounting based on calculation-in-kind to value resources and goods wherein production is carried out directly for use.[18][19] There have been numerous political movements such as anarchism, communism, the labour movement, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism, whose members called themselves socialists under some definition of the term—some of these interpretations are mutually exclusive and all of them have generated debates over the true meaning of socialism.[2][13] Different self-described socialists have used socialism to refer to different things such as an economic system,[3][4][5][6][7] a type of society,[8] a philosophical outlook,[1] an ethical socialism in the form of a collection of moral values and ideals,[20][21][22][23] or a certain kind of human character.[24] Some of those definitions of socialism are very vague[24] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as socialism in the past such as a mode of production,[25] state socialism,[26] or the abolition of wage labour.
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?Seversky_{November 21, 2021
November
11
Nov
21
21
2021
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next