Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Call it what you please, its the intent not the necessity by demand that separates the two views.A free market economy has never been the description of any capitalist government ive ever experienced or seen.

Kudo's Xris, bravo to you. I have not read all the posts, but I have read enough. The ego and the greed motivated combatants you are efforting to communicate with don't have a clue as to what you are saying primarily because the don't understand it. The are under the same spell most are when it comes's to seeing the truth behind those ever so casually tossed around axiom's of "...to the victor go the spoils", and "...only the strong survive", and one of the most egregious is the one that states, "... God helps those who help themselves".

Hell, let's get back to basic's here. Let's look at the word social and what it means and then gander at it's counter part, anti-social. Frankly, even before we begin to understand the ramifications of the two, I like social better. IMO, he who favors anti-social is one sick puppy and will never be invited to a beach party. Ha. A little levity never hurt. Oh, hell they probably wouldn't go anyway for fear that some freedom loving party goer might spill their beverage on their $1,000.oo shoes.

Now let's look at the two words. First "social".
--pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations.
--seeking or enjoying the companionship of others; friendly; sociable.
--of, pertaining to, connected with, or suited to polite society.
--living or disposed to live in companionship with others or in a community, rather than in isolation.
--of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community.
--noting or pertaining to activities designed to remedy or alleviate certain unfavorable conditions of life in a community, esp. among the poor.
Synonyms:
-gregarious -convivial -companionable -amusing -civil -collective -common -communal -communicative-community -cordial

Now, "Anti-social"
--unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people
--antagonistic, hostile, or unfriendly toward others; menacing; threatening
--opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted
--of or pertaining to a pattern of behavior in which social norms and the rights of others are persistently violated
Synonyms:-alienated-ascetic-austere-cold-cynical-introverted-misanthroic-reclusive-remote-reserve-retiring-solitary.

Now if socialism has anything do with what it means to be social. Ah, hell, it's a no brainer.
If you are not social, that means you are antisocial. Please if you don't mind, stay clear of me unless it is to ask for my help in curing your illness.

William

Do you have any thoughts on the argument presented by those you are calling anti-social? Can you formulate a coherant rebuttal to any of the points I made in the last twenty odd pages? If not, while we're name calling, I'll call you the guy who can't actually think, but rather regurgitates slogans and propoganda, and engages in ad hominem attacks when he can't retrieve from his memory a proper slogan. The ideal useful idiot. Good work.

Anything that takes 20 pages to get your point across gotta be to complicated for me. I like simplicity. Nothing like getting to the meat of the matter. I don't remember any name calling. If you don't mind please bring it to my attention. I would appreciate it. One thing I did like about your post is at least you consider me useful. Thanks. I appreciate that.:a-ok:

William

I can't help it if the person I'm debating dosen't or isn't willing to understand my statements. 20 pages is excessive, the point is fairly simple, but you'll have to bring that up with Xris.





This statement 1) is based on nothing and 2) shows that you in fact do not understand the issue being discussed.



Not useful to me. You should check into what happens to the useful idiots come revolution. :a-ok:

Yeah. That's why people are socialists/hippies/nazis/lefties. It's an easy to grasp appeal to emotionality.
See here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/logic/4201-why-does-loud-stupidity-seem-trump-thoughtful-logic.html

BrightNoon,

Let me see if I can explain my views in such a way so that you will understand where I am coming from. But I have a feeling if will fall on deaf ears, but I will give it a shot anyway.

Any attempt for any group, country or whatever to develop a equitably social structure within that group is absolutely impossible. For that to happen that group would have to be absolutely self sustaining. It will have to be a global effort. Those countries that have tried have failed miserably because they were not self sustaining when it comes to resources available to support it. No one country is. None.

The structure that dominates the world today is capitalism and in my opinion that structure is the antithesis of what social means. Oh, you can be social if you have the money it takes to participate in that structure, but if you don't, by it's very structure you will not be able to participate in it and you will become a victim it. It becomes a "dictatorship". In a capitalist structure you have to do as it tells you to do if you want to make money. That is it's primary concern. There are no other concerns.
Those individuals who do not have the mental "blueprint", to follow those dictates, become "dead weight". Those who are gifted with exceptional innate physical features, talents and abilities are quickly "bought" up and treated as highly paid commodities that become enslaved by the system to do it's bidding. Sycophants or obsequiousnes
personified. ( This "useful idiot" just learned a new word.) Pat me on the back. Ha.

Our educational system is designed to separate what it considers it's potential assets from it's liabilities. Those liabilities being those who have a hard time following those instructions dictated by that educational system and they become the "have nots" and the assets become the "haves" simply because they were good students and will be assets to this "money making machine".

That is were the anti-social behavior begins creating a separation among people in which "status" rules. Those "haves" who have followed the rules and make the most money become addicted to "their status" in this capitalistic society and give little consideration to those "have nots", for they are in essence now waste material. Capitalism's educational system is a weeding process in an effort to find those vibrant roots it will need to sustain it's money making foundation. Now the question is, "What do we do with the weeds"?

BrightNoon, you and I are on the opposite end of the spectrum as I represent that "weedless idiot" that just will not be dismissed, and you are a gifted student of the capitalistic educational system and our perspectives are as different as night and day. If I had to compromise my innate values in order to eat that Filet Mignon, if you don't mind, I'll stick with the soup.

I, on the one hand, see the anti-social behavior this educational system fosters and, you on the other hand being you have excelled in aligning with it's dictates have become a slave to it. You only think the way it has dictated for you to think and that is to do everything you can to make money so you can survive in the inequity that exists between "haves" and the "have nots"; a situation this very educational system created. I am sure you were probably a A student. Me, I made terrible grades. It never make any sense to me. Even as a child, I had numerous fights with those who thought they were better than me. Humph!!! Thank God, I have become more understanding. You see, BrightNoon, I totally understand where you are coming from. The problem you don't have a clue as to where I am coming from. Even the mention of a social construct, in any context, counters everything this educational system teaches and uses those failures of those who have tried as it's rebuttal argument. Rather than "teach" the value of communication, cooperation and the use of global resources for the benefit all people, it capitalizes only on that which is necessary to support it's need for "money".

When you have a structure in which it's only value is based on the amount of money one has rather than on the person themselves, there is no hope of establishing a global "morality" which in and of itself is an anathema to this educational process. Precisely why the ACLU is efforting to erase the word "moral" from our governing process using the immorality of discrimination of which it accuses religion flagrantly guilty of.

Discrimination in any context is wrong. It is a creature of ignorance no matter what venue it comes from. What is important here is once you eliminate the word morality, along with it goes any effort of understanding what is moral and that which is immoral and that lead's to decadence. The ACLU is efforting to eliminate that word too as it is an infringement of one's civil liberties in a supposedly "free society".

Due to the ambiguity of our language, that capitalistic structure is trying to rationalize that morality is a threat to freedom, when without it there can be no freedom, only chaos. I have heard mention on more than one occasion, what this world needs is a benevolent dictator who "knows" the difference between right and wrong to guide and direct our path through these perilous times. If that were possible, one thing I do know for sure, he will come from the "have not" side of the aisle. I guarantee it. He will know what it is to be a victim of inequity, not use victimhood as a ruse to instill sympathy to mask hidden agendas that thrive on that inequity which is the very root of capitalism that began many, many years ago. It has never worked and it never will. Believe it or not the "idiot weeds" are not as dumb as one might think they are.

For this planet "to work", there "must" be a mutually agreed on social construct in which all who reside here can participate in cooperation with each other. A world in which terms like "anti-social" don't exist.
Is this hard to imagine considering the reality we currently are existing in that the "haves" have created and maintain to control? Yeah, sure it is. This is all we have ever really known and why a little common sense that can only come from one who has not become brainwashed by that reality can offer.

So, BrightNoon, there is nothing you can say in rebuttal that will ever change my mind to your way of thinking. Nothing. I am not as gifted as you are at rationalizing that which is wrong to make it right. Only "A students" can do that. Of course in truth, it's not their fault, it's how they were programmed. :whistling:

William

First, thank you for presenting your view. I love debate, but I hate talking to a wall, so an actual argument is much appreciated.

[quote]Any attempt for any group, country or whatever to develop a equitably social structure within that group is absolutely impossible. For that to happen that group would have to be absolutely self sustaining. It will have to be a global effort. Those countries that have tried have failed miserably because they were not self sustaining when it comes to resources available to support it. No one country is. None.[/quote]

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by 'a equitable social structure' or how that's relates to being independent of global trends. Could you please elaborate? If you mean that it is impossible for any society to achieve social equality, I agree, and if you mean that a socialist/communist state cannot succeed in its mission to create social equality because of the fact that it must relate to foreign, non-socialist states, then I agree again. However, saying that socialism fails because it has not been instituted globally is like saying that a dog can't fly because he's tied to a fence; whether or not he's tied to the fence, he can't fly. Under any conditions, social equality is not possible, even under the most brutal totalitarian regime which manages the behavior of everyone in order to create the ideal 'just' society. I'll say it once, and I'll surely be saying it again throughout this response; equality can only be achieved at the expense of liberty; i.e. because people are not born equal, which equal talent and luck, for them to become equal, they have to be made equal, by a government which has the power to manage the most minute details of personal life.

[quote]The structure that dominates the world today is capitalism and in my opinion that structure is the antithesis of what social means. Oh, you can be social if you have the money it takes to participate in that structure, but if you don't, by it's very structure you will not be able to participate in it and you will become a victim it.[/quote]



[quote]It becomes a "dictatorship". In a capitalist structure you have to do as it tells you to do if you want to make money.[/quote]

No one has to do anything in a libertarian, free market society. Everyone does what he wants, so long as that does not directly harm the others. If someone wants something (a TV e.g.) which he cannot create himself, he has to get someone else to give it to him. If he finds someone in possession of a TV who is willing to give it up in return for something that he has, then our man gets a new TV. There could be nothing less dictatorial; unlike the collectivist alternate, which involved the man without a TV calling up the local commissar and having the TV stolen for him. Every single transaction between individuals is absolutely voluntary. Again, if you object to the fact that some people get more TVs than others because they have more stuff to trade for TVs, because they're more talented or luckier, then you really object to reality, which cannot be changed except by totalitarian control of everything.

[quote]Those individuals who do not have the mental "blueprint", to follow those dictates, become "dead weight". Those who are gifted with exceptional innate physical features, talents and abilities are quickly "bought" up and treated as highly paid commodities that become enslaved by the system to do it's bidding. Sycophants or obsequiousness personified.[/quote]

I didn't realize it was obsequious of me to discover that I am skilled at X activity, and then to earn a living from performing X activity. In what way does voluntarily doing something in return for something else (labor for food, rent, TV, car, etc.) make me enslaved? I suppose the opposite then is freedom: to be told what you deserve to have given to you?

[quote]Our educational system is designed to separate what it considers it's potential assets from it's liabilities. Those liabilities being those who have a hard time following those instructions dictated by that educational system and they become the "have nots" and the assets become the "haves" simply because they were good students and will be assets to this "money making machine". That is were the anti-social behavior begins creating a separation among people in which "status" rules. Those "haves" who have followed the rules and make the most money become addicted to "their status" in this capitalistic society and give little consideration to those "have nots", for they are in essence now waste material. Capitalism's educational system is a weeding process in an effort to find those vibrant roots it will need to sustain it's money making foundation. Now the question is, "What do we do with the weeds"?[/quote]

First, I completely agree with you that the American education system is horrible. The goal is not to educate but to train. This is natural result of public education; it will be used to serve the state and the nation, but the individuals enrolled in asinine classes. State education is an absolute requirement for authoritarian rule. Notice how much emphasis the European fascists, Soviets and Maoists placed on education. I oppose public education. Secondly, yes in any system that values the intelligence, strength, physical skill, charisma, or any human quality, there will always be people who are successful and people who will not be. Some people are fit for some tasks, some people are not. For example, people who are born without eyes should not be bus drivers. Again, you have a problem with reality (the fact that there is inequality), but that cannot be changed without completely eliminating freedom. If you're ok with doing that, exchanging individual freedom for an ideal of social equality, by all means, but I don't think I'll join you.

[quote]I, on the one hand, see the anti-social behavior this educational system fosters and, you on the other hand being you have excelled in aligning with it's dictates have become a slave to it. You only think the way it has dictated for you to think and that is to do everything you can to make money so you can survive in the inequity that exists between "haves" and the "have nots"; a situation this very educational system created. I am sure you were probably a A student. Me, I made terrible grades. It never make any sense to me. Even as a child, I had numerous fights with those who thought they were better than me. Humph!!! Thank God, I have become more understanding. You see, BrightNoon, I totally understand where you are coming from.[/quote]

This made me laugh. I have done nothing since I've been in public school but disagree with and object to almost every doctrine it teaches. Have you ever been to an American high school? They do not teach about personal responsibility, the value of the individual, limited government, free markets, etc. They teach the exact opposite of that. I was never required to read the constitution once; every history book praised FDR's 'new deal' as the epitome of the proper role of government (i.e. price controls, central planning, high taxes, public works projects, etc.). Moreover, I could write in a few paragraphs what I learned in public school. If I seem at all intelligent to you, that is COMPETELY a result of 'work' (I like to read, so it's not really work) that I've done outside of school. What is so ironic William is that American education is in fact producing, and is designed to produce, people like you. I am exactly what they do not want. They want people who believe that the government can and should attempt to solve all problems, people who trust the authorities, people who don't know or care about their rights, people who value diversity and tolerance (which is really supreme intolerance) above freedom, etc. You are the slave, not me.

[quote]The problem you don't have a clue as to where I am coming from.[/quote]

Explain your basic socio-economic status to me. My dad has worked for thirty years in a glass factory, my mom is a dental hygienist, but they're divorced. I am going to be paying for all my college expenses with loans. I drive a 94 Saturn with 110,000 miles on it. Yes, I'm some kind of brandy quaffing, caviar-eating, elitist desk-chair economist. However, I've misled you. I don't really find my social status, or yours, to be of any consequence whatsoever for the debate we are having. Unfortunately for people like you who like to appeal to emotional arguments, the facts and logic don't care about our personal experiences. If you can't explain to me 'where you're coming from,' i.e. if you claim that I can't see the self-evident truth of your argument unless I lived what you lived, then you don't have an argument at all.

[quote]Rather than "teach" the value of communication, cooperation and the use of global resources for the benefit all people, it capitalizes only on that which is necessary to support it's need for "money".[/quote]





[quote]When you have a structure in which it's only value is based on the amount of money one has rather than on the person themselves, there is no hope of establishing a global "morality" which in and of itself is an anathema to this educational process.[/quote]

• How exactly can a person, as a member of society, be valued except in terms of what he can do for the others, or at least by how he appears to the others? Shall we have everyone fill out a survey to determine what his own opinion is of himself and then place people accordingly? Value is subjective: i.e. value depends on who is doing the valuing. If we are talking about the value of a person's labor, e.g., that is determined by whoever he sells his labor to.
  
• Why should there be a global morality?
  

[quote]Due to the ambiguity of our language, that capitalistic structure is trying to rationalize that morality is a threat to freedom, when without it there can be no freedom, only chaos.[/quote]

The free market libertarian society does not oppose morality. It opposes government mandated morality; i.e. morality backed with the brute force of the police.

[quote]I have heard mention on more than one occasion, what this world needs is a benevolent dictator who "knows" the difference between right and wrong to guide and direct our path through these perilous times. If that were possible, one thing I do know for sure, he will come from the "have not" side of the aisle. I guarantee it.[/quote]

A benevolent dictator is exactly what you are asking for. In a collectivist state, the government always does what's best for the people, with 'best' being defined by the government of course. Hugo Chavez, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and Benito Mussolini all grew up poor and rose to prominence to become 'the champion of the people.' Of course, they ended by putting the people in cages, or butchering them in the street. Good luck with that. Power corrupts.

[quote]So, BrightNoon, there is nothing you can say in rebuttal that will ever change my mind to your way of thinking. Nothing. I am not as gifted as you are at rationalizing that which is wrong to make it right. Only "A students" can do that. Of course in truth, it's not their fault, it's how they were programmed.:whistling:[/quote]

I'll ignore your baseless assumptions and leave you with this thought to chew on. You William, not I, are the type of person who is the foundation upon which our contemporary society rests. You are the creation of the very people, the wealthy elites, which you think you are opposing. You are helping them to achieve their goal. You are not a weed; you are the sweet flower they've been pruning for decades, the ideal man who will lead the way down the road to serfdom.

William, I would appreciate a long and thought out response to BrightNoons post, because I am interested in how you can disagree with hose statements.

A quick overall comment: What you criticize as enslaving us into a "money making machine", and excluding the ones that can't deliver, is not capitalism, it's really only human existence.

BrightNoon, the bold are your thoughts, the rest are mine.

"However, saying that socialism fails because it has not been instituted globally is like saying that a dog can't fly because he's tied to a fence; whether or not he's tied to the fence, he can't fly".

Again, please do not relate to what I am saying as to the failed models of attempted socialism of the past. I am talking about a global cooperation. This "dog can fly", he's just up until now "never tried". There is no precedent for what I am describing.

"I'll say it once, and I'll surely be saying it again throughout this response; equality can only be achieved at the expense of liberty; i.e. because people are not born equal, which equal talent and luck, for them to become equal, they have to be made equal, by a government which has the power to manage the most minute details of personal life".

I agree with you as to the way you are using "equal". Equality in the context I am using it is that universal entitlement for all people to be free. This is not something that is going to happen over night and it may just very well be that "Libertarianism" is a integral step in that process. What ever that process is it must be globally accepted. No structure will work if it is not. The resources we have on this planet and the people on it must reach an equilibrium that must be fair and just to achieve a harmonic balance. In that structure must be incorporated a "rewards" system that encourages individual ideas, talents, gifts and knowledge that will enhance life on this planet, not seduce, tempt, control, rule and empower people to be something they are not.

"To me, the essence of freedom is being able to not be social, if being social means doing what and only what society agrees is appropriate for you to do. If that's what social means, I'm gladly anti-social. Every person in a free market, libertarian society is allowed exactly the same privileges as everyone else. Everyone is equal before the law".

You are using definitions as they currently exist based on those parameters laid down by those in control. Yes, there must be a guiding hand that will allow people to tap into their own natural resources, "themselves" and offer that which comes naturally to them not what is appropriate for any select group that has power over them that forces them to perform in such a way that is only satisfying to continuance of that very power. I agree in the beginning there will be a need for control to a degree, but one that can be trusted as gradually graduates to that level when control vanishes because of global acceptance and understanding for those who have the mental facilities to understand and an absolutely fair and equitable treatment for those who, for what ever reason don't have the mental acuity to understand. It is these people whom the powers that be in this current reality take gross advantage of much akin to a Feudal Lord over his servants.

"If you object to the fact that people have different abilities, more or less good luck, etc. and thus have different lifestyles, and are able to do different things, then you are not objecting to capitalism, you are objecting to reality. That is a natural state."

Yes, that is the reality we are living, and if those abilities, luck, lifestyles and things are acquired at the expense of another or case harm to another, then they are not natural Not even close. They are acquired. I will never hear one's argument, if it leads to that conclusion, "...that's reality, that's life, that's just the way things are." as if were all blind and dumb and must accept the situation as it is as if we are helpless to do anything about it.

"To make it otherwise inherently requires that force be used by the government power to make people equal........"

You are failing to see the over all scope of all I am espousing as you are using current language structure to justify your thinking. Which is natural, I understand that. Government in itself is a none word to me. It sucks. I don't want to be "governed" and neither do you. No one does. Guided, yes, by all means. But by those who have my best natural interests at heart. Instead, I prefer a "global consortium" composed of those who have excelled in their field whether it be environmental, manufacturing, distribution, education, medicine, pure scientific endeavor, etc all of which are committed to reaching a balance using all the Earth's resources including those that lie between the ears of mankind to reach a harmonic reality. Greed is the only obstacle to that paradigm, and that comes from those "acquired" abilities, lifestyles and things" you have mentioned above that are controlled by the ego and ego only with little regard to anyone else.

"Ownership is a legal conception of nothing more than the right to use things. There are only two options; individuals own things or the government owns things. In other words, either individual have the right to use certain things which they have acquired, or the government determines what rights of use people have: for land, water, food, etc. Collectivism is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. While collective ownership is supposed to ensure that resources are shared equitably, it results in a situation where the people de facto pay rent or dues, via service, for everything they use. In other words, collectivism is a cleverly disguised return to feudalism. Its not surprising then that the greatest supporters of socialism/communism were and are the old wealthy families and industrial barons who would like to be the new aristocracy".

Again, your use of current language structure and definitions. That in and of itself is a severe problem that causes others not "to hear". Myself, included, as I have failed to understand you, and if I am correct, most others, too. Ownership sucks. THIS EARTH IS NOT FOR SALE, PERIOD. BrightNoon, believe it or not you and I are on the same path, only our language differs. You are trying to fit an idea, of Libertarianism into a political structure that has absolutely not idea of what "freedom" means. You are using language constructs that have been created by that very political structure as you use the terms, "government, collectivism and feudalism, socialism and communism." These are all words that exists to define the reality we are currently existing in and represent the boundaries that separate us. You are trying to change the game using the rules of the game they invented. It's funny later on in the post, you accuse me of that. See how turned around, ambiguous and confusing communication has become. As far a Feudalism, and the returned to. Hell we haven't returned to it, we have refined it. Ha.

"No one has to do anything in a libertarian, free market society. Everyone does what he wants, so long as that does not directly harm the others. If someone wants something (a TV e.g.) which he cannot create himself, he has to get someone else to give it to him. If he finds someone in possession of a TV who is willing to give it up in return for something that he has, then our man gets a new TV. There could be nothing less dictatorial; unlike the collectivist alternate, which involved the man without a TV calling up the local commissar and having the TV stolen for him. Every single transaction between individuals is absolutely voluntary. Again, if you object to the fact that some people get more TVs than others because they have more stuff to trade for TVs, because they're more talented or luckier, then you really object to reality, which cannot be changed except by totalitarian control of everything".

People don't want anything other than the right, for which they are entitled to live on this planet free to do that which comes natural to them as long as you say directly OR INDIRECTLY, cause no harm to another. Any type of "collectivism" that requires the gathering of resources, natural or otherwise, used as a means to enforce status and power or an estranged social agenda, is absolutely, unequivocally and naturally wrong.

"I didn't realize it was obsequious of me to discover that I am skilled at X activity, and then to earn a living from performing X activity. In what way does voluntarily doing something in return for something else (labor for food, rent, TV, car, etc.) make me enslaved? I suppose the opposite then is freedom: to be told what you deserve to have given to you"?

An absolutely wonderful question. And the question is you should have to "earn a living" doing that. You are entitled to it. Again language gone awry. The phrase "earn a living" absolutely repulses me. It didn't always for there was a time when I thought like you and how I was trained. Cost of living was an everyday phrase and one in which no one ever questioned. I have often wondered the origin of the phrase. I have not managed to find that little tidbit of lore. To earn a living based on the acquisition of any commodity that is rare is the number one problem with this reality, whether that commodity be money (based on the gold one has acquired), or at least it used to be, or any other comodity deemed rare, is absolute stupidity. That is the very thing that has got everything so out of kilter and chaotic. There's just not enough to go around. That creates inequity which fosters greed and condescension in those who have the most of it; and animosity and envy in those who have less. Common sense personified. To be "told" what to do is what our laws are about, forcing people to do what those laws dictate to protect that very inequity. Stupidity. The only way to force one to abide by this inequity is to hold his very life in jeopardy. That's why we have laws created by those who have more of this "gold", as it were. Modern Feudalism. I have also tried to determine where the first "king" came from. Again another little tidbit not found in ancient lore. More importantly, who made that sucker king in the first place? People don't want anything given to them. It is innate in man to offer what he can as long as he is free to do so and not forced to. If he has nothing to offer it is because he has never had the opportunity to for his contributions are not needed by the powers that be, and in effect he becomes a serf or a slave.

"First, I completely agree with you that the American education system is horrible. The goal is not to educate but to train. This is natural result of public education; it will be used to serve the state and the nation, but the individuals enrolled in asinine classes. State education is an absolute requirement for authoritarian rule. Notice how much emphasis the European fascists, Soviets and Maoists placed on education. I oppose public education. Secondly, yes in any system that values the intelligence, strength, physical skill, charisma, or any human quality, there will always be people who are successful and people who will not be. Some people are fit for some tasks, some people are not. For example, people who are born without eyes should not be bus drivers. Again, you have a problem with reality (the fact that there is inequality), but that cannot be changed without completely eliminating freedom. If you're ok with doing that, exchanging individual freedom for an ideal of social equality, by all means, but I don't think I'll join you"

This is not going to be easy for you, especially, to understand. It is not meant to be rude nor condescending, so please do not take it that way. BrightNoon you and are so much closer together in our ideologies than you think. The above paragraph I have outlined in red illustrates the division you and I have in communicating with each other. It is your use of the language this very same educational system has imposed on you as you use the words, "successful, fit, tasks, reality, inequality, freedom and social". The manner in which you are attempting to communicate is "textbook" public educational indoctrination. Now, let's take them one at a time, okay.

1. Successful-It's antonym is "unsuccessful". Now what does that really mean, "unsuccessful"? It means someone who does not "live up" to societal standards creating "anti-social" paradigms. You don't want to be anti-social, you have been trained to be because of those parameters "society" has set in place that will lift it above all else who don't fit their qualifications. Those who will not fit become social Pariah's; those who do become slaves. Here comes that word Feudalism again.

2. Fit (defined in above paragraph)

3. Tasks-Something that requires undue effort. Something we are forced to do or we force ourselves to do in order to achieve a desired result. Something I have learned, if it requires "effort" then perhaps we are not meant to venture there and enlist the talents of another in which that end can be reached with little effort and fairly compensated using a more a well managed and fair bartering system rather than a reward system based on a commodity that is rare. Such as money, gold or television sets that deplete resources. In other words a well managed system in which the use of that which is unlimited, such as a point system that can be utilized to adequately compensate those who can achieve those results with little effort. Under this system we as a whole can do what can do, rather than what we can "afford" to do based on the available resources. Which means the word "task" would become a non word and stricken from our learning process and the language we speak.

4. Reality-In the context in which you are using the word "reality", IMO you are addressing something that is out of our control and what "is", is. God, I just sounded like Bill Clinton, heaven forbid. The powers that be created this reality and it can be changed, I guarantee it. You are using the same old cliche as it relates to "human nature". If you think for one second human nature cannot be altered, you are indeed a product of our educational system. It is not human nature to kill our unborn; it is not human nature to be homosexual; it is not of human nature to be greedy; it is not human nature to murder; it is not human nature to be "animal", etc, etc, etc, etc........................................, period. We don't have a clue as to what human nature is until we begin treating all human beings as human beings, then we will begin to understand what it means to be human. We murder to survive. Once we begin to live, murder, too will cease to be a part of our nomenclature. My God, look at that word, will you. You'd think I was educated, huh? Almost, but not plum. I am educated, just not the way society has defined it.

5. Inequality-The words, quality, equality and inequality, are all defined by standards our flawed human nature defines. You have mention on more than one occasion every one has the same opportunity to be what they want to be and that is patently false. That ideal has never existed. Never! One can be what he wants to be if he abides by the laws set forth by those who could care less about equality. Simply because the do not consider themselves equals; they are the "elite" and normal rules don't apply. They designed that educational system of which you deny, but yet are so dependent on as you use the terms "maoists, communists, fascists in an attempt to define equality and the failures they represent as a result of the enormous inequity present in the world. Eliminate the inequity, those words too will cease to exist along with prejudice, discrimination and racism. You know my list I so often refer to, we are eliminating it as I speak.

5. Freedom-It has never existed on this planet. Oh sure you can be free if you obey the king who will grant you with land and title if you make good grades in those schools he has designed to support his lifestyle. If you make bad grades, your screwed. I know, I told the king long ago to kiss my ass. Cost me dearly, for then I had to fend for myself and become a renegade, commissioned salesman and live by my own set of rules and regulations relying on my talents of communication to make my way in the world. I was free of the constraints impose by the king to abide by his construct that bred inequality as we were conditioned to think those of lesser intellect or means did not deserve to be "free". They don't have what it takes to pay that "price", and what they were capable of was not of value to the king. If Feudalism rearing it's ugly head again. Well, I'll be. Fancy that!

6. Social-Now that's a word that has been bandied about when you look at all it's derivatives. Such as society. A social construct invented by the elites who are infected with the disease of "anti-socialism". They will be social with you if you rate. If you don't you are, here comes that word again, a pariah. An ignorant, no good, lazy parasitic waste of humanity who is using up our precious resources and is treated as such. I have got to calm down, my blood pressure is spiking. Ha. High society, my aching ass. Sorry, my human nature rearing it ugly and reacting to the constraints this "society" imposes.

"This made me laugh. I have done nothing since I've been in public school but disagree with and object to almost every doctrine it teaches. Have you ever been to an American high school? They do not teach about personal responsibility, the value of the individual, limited government, free markets, etc. They teach the exact opposite of that. I was never required to read the constitution once; every history book praised FDR's 'new deal' as the epitome of the proper role of government (i.e. price controls, central planning, high taxes, public works projects, etc.). Moreover, I could write in a few paragraphs what I learned in public school. If I seem at all intelligent to you, that is COMPETELY a result of 'work' (I like to read, so it's not really work) that I've done outside of school. What is so ironic William is that American education is in fact producing, and is designed to produce, people like you. I am exactly what they do not want. They want people who believe that the government can and should attempt to solve all problems, people who trust the authorities, people who don't know or care about their rights, people who value diversity and tolerance (which is really supreme intolerance) above freedom, etc. You are the slave, not me".

Now after reading my above responses, please reread this last paragraph you wrote to see if you still agree by it's content. If you do, then I am afraid there is no hope of you and I seeing eye to eye on anything. When in truth we are so close it's not funny. The American Education produced you, not me. I will agree much to much what you say as you espouse a political ideal as "libertarianism" for it contains some elements of what I consider truth and I will stand beside you on those. But to espouse a reality that to me would result a free for all, is not what 'freedom' to me means. I hope my response has identified a little more of what true freedom is all about.

I do owe you an apology in that since I did not peruse the entire 20 pages or so, I was not totally familiar with exactly where you stood. I still hold by my original post concerning social and anti-social and I hope you will understand a little more of where I am coming from.

Thanks,
William

[quote]Yes, that is the reality we are living, and if those abilities, luck, lifestyles and things are acquired at the expense of another or case harm to another, then they are not natural Not even close. They are acquired. I will never hear one's argument, if it leads to that conclusion, "...that's reality, that's life, that's just the way things are." as if were all blind and dumb and must accept the situation as it is as if we are helpless to do anything about it.[/quote]

You did not understand me. I meant that a state of biological inequality or inequality due to accidents of birth, etc. will always exist unless positive action is taken to change that state. In that sense inequality is natural, though I am not arguing that because it is natural it is good. The word natural isn't important for the argument. My point was that, because inequality is 'natural' in that it will exist unless actions are taken to prevent it, it follows logically that to establish a state of equality society would have to be actively changed; i.e. laws will be made, people persuaded or forced to change their x, y and z. More of the decisions regarding the behavior of individuals will be made by a governing body, by society on average lets say, instead of the individuals themselves. I call that a loss of individual freedom. Therefore, by definition, to create a 'just' society (where there is equality) the governing authority, whatever you might like to call it (the guiders we'll say for you), has to increase its role, and some individual freedoms have to be lost. To really achieve a perfect equality would require a total loss of freedom, or very nearly. Think of Harrison Bergeron.

[quote]You are failing to see the over all scope of all I am espousing as you are using current language structure to justify your thinking. Which is natural, I understand that. Government in itself is a none word to me. It sucks. I don't want to be "governed" and neither do you. No one does. Guided, yes, by all means. But by those who have my best natural interests at heart. Instead, I prefer a "global consortium" composed of those who have excelled in their field whether it be environmental, manufacturing, distribution, education, medicine, pure scientific endeavor, etc all of which are committed to reaching a balance using all the Earth's resources including those that lie between the ears of mankind to reach a harmonic reality. Greed is the only obstacle to that paradigm, and that comes from those "acquired" abilities, lifestyles and things" you have mentioned above that are controlled by the ego and ego only with little regard to anyone else.[/quote]

I think you're dancing around the issue. In the society which you are envisioning, is there or is there not some institution, whatever its label, which is generally agreed to have the authority to use force against members of the society in order to either punish or simply force a certain behavior? Are there taxes, required service of some kind, rules or laws of any kind? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then my point stands; the point that to achieve equality or some sort of collectivist society force has to be used by the government against the people in order to modify their behavior. A planned society must have rules, and rules must be enforced, no? Ergo, less individual freedom.

The issue is the same with 'indirect harm.' If people are not allowed to harm each other indirectly, then the government has to have and enforce rules concerning the indirect interaction of people. What doesn't this give the government the prerogative to control? Any action, every action, of every person influences the life of every other person in at least some minute way. Free speech comes to mind. If we allow the government the authority to prevent 'indirect harm' how can people be free to express themselves? People say hurtful things. But the loss of freedom wouldn't stop there. What you are suggesting is basically, at least in theory if not in practice (and it's a slippery slope), that society as a whole should have the power to interfere in every aspect of the behavior of every individual member of society. That to me is a total loss of freedom. About the word freedom itself we seem to have a misunderstanding. I don't equate freedom with happiness, or comfort or well-being. It is simply the ability to direct the course of one's own life. As I explained before, its not possible logically for everyone to literally be able to do exactly as they please, because peoples' desires conflict. Thus, the law has to establish some balance. For me, the ideal balance is that which allows maximum individual freedom without causing the law and society to itself dissolve and collapse as a result. I'm looking for the thinnest veneer over complete anarchy, and that is libertarianism. While we're talking about language, I have to ask you what exactly you mean when you say that the 'isms,' among other words, like freedom and government, are specific to and only meaningful within the context of the society that created them. In any debate, both parties have to be able to reserve the right to define their own terminology as it suits them. If I want to have a debate in which the word 'high' actually means 'low' then I can, without any problems or confusion, so long as I present that definition at the start. My point is that the sense in which I'm using those words is exactly the sense in which I appear to be using those words. If you think they are anachronistic or simply don't like them because they come from a culture that you wish to change, then present your own definitions and we'll work with them. However, responding to one of my arguments with 'it doesn't follow because the words are biased' won't do at all. Understanding the words as I've defined them, does the logic of my argument make sense or not? If not, how?

[quote]Ownership sucks. THIS EARTH IS NOT FOR SALE, PERIOD.[/quote]

The concept of ownership, as I said before, is an arbitrary construct, needed for legal purposes. The basic idea is as simple as this; there are many instances in which more people want to use some resource than that resource can support, e.g. a river for irrigation. There are two possibilities. Either 1) the parties concerned fight over the resource and the strongest prevails or 2) the parties come to some kind of agreement by which they either share the resource or it goes to only some of them, the others being compensated for surrendering their claims to use. Out of option two comes the concept of ownership. Saying that 'the earth is not for sale' makes for good rhetoric, but what does it mean? In the society you envision is there such an abundance of everything that there is never a conflict between people who each want the same resource? If not, then you are not advocating a propertyless world, you are just getting rid of the word property and in fact transferring all property to the collective: i.e. society as whole will have the power to determine who should have the right to use what, and when and how. As far as I'm concerned, property is the basic requirement of a free society. If everything that one uses in one's life (food, water, housing, transport, etc) is owned by society as a whole, and one's rights of use are determined by society as a whole, then one has no freedom of action at all.

[quote]An absolutely wonderful question. And the question is you should have to "earn a living" doing that. You are entitled to it. Again language gone awry. The phrase "earn a living" absolutely repulses me. It didn't always for there was a time when I thought like you and how I was trained.[/quote]

'Earn a living' simply means 'provide for one's own welfare.' If one does not have to 'earn a living' then one is given a living, those are the only two options. A person who is given a living is a dependent, a client, a serf, a slave. The power is always with the creditor, and I mean that in a general sense, not with regard only to a capitalist system. How has the now overtly corrupt American government acquired most of its power? Did they appropriate things? Not really, they loaned or gave away things and created dependents who would be supporters. Because of welfare for example, there is a huge class of people in this country that will never oppose the government, because they have been made completely dependent on the government.

[quote]1. Successful-It's antonym is "unsuccessful". Now what does that really mean, "unsuccessful"? It means someone who does not "live up" to societal standards creating "anti-social" paradigms. You don't want to be anti-social, you have been trained to be because of those parameters "society" has set in place that will lift it above all else who don't fit their qualifications. Those who will not fit become social Pariah's; those who do become slaves. Here comes that word Feudalism again.[/quote]


That is one meaning. I meant it in a completely ethically neutral sense. In other words, when I referred to people as successful or unsuccessful, I did not mean in an absolute sense, I meant 'successful for some purpose,' as in successful in acquiring food, providing shelter, whatever that individual may want to do. If your goal is to grow morbidly obese watching TV and eating Twinkies, and you do that, then you are successful.

[quote]2. Fit (defined in above paragraph)[/quote]

The same here. I was speaking about being fit for some task, whatever that might be. Not only those who meet societal standards are fit; all those who are able to do whatever the task in question are fit for that task. There's no attitude or programming in what I'm saying, just grammar and logic. If you don't want to use these terms, then don't, but I have used them, and I mean them to be understood in the way that I define them.

[quote]3. Tasks-Something that requires undue effort. Something we are forced to do or we force ourselves to do in order to achieve a desired result. Something I have learned, if it requires "effort" then perhaps we are not meant to venture there and enlist the talents of another in which that end can be reached with little effort and fairly compensated using a more a well managed and fair bartering system rather than a reward system based on a commodity that is rare. Such as money, gold or television sets that deplete resources. In other words a well managed system in which the use of that which is unlimited, such as a point system that can be utilized to adequately compensate those who can achieve those results with little effort. Under this system we as a whole can do what can do, rather than what we can "afford" to do based on the available resources. Which means the word "task" would become a non word and stricken from our learning process and the language we speak.[/quote]


I don't follow you. How can we ever do more than we can afford to do given the available resources? Are you suggesting that in your ideal society every person would have all the resources he needed in order to do everything he wanted to do? That's a dream. Many resources are simply finite. If you don't mean that, and you recognize that people can only do what they can afford to do, then we have only one other question to answer; should the individuals themselves be able to acquire, via mutually voluntary agreements with others, what they need to do what they want to do, or should the collective determine what every person should have?

[quote]4. Reality-In the context in which you are using the word "reality", IMO you are addressing something that is out of our control and what "is", is. God, I just sounded like Bill Clinton, heaven forbid. The powers that be created this reality and it can be changed, I guarantee it. You are using the same old cliche as it relates to "human nature". If you think for one second human nature cannot be altered, you are indeed a product of our educational system. It is not human nature to kill our unborn; it is not human nature to be homosexual; it is not of human nature to be greedy; it is not human nature to murder; it is not human nature to be "animal", etc, etc, etc, etc........................................, period. We don't have a clue as to what human nature is until we begin treating all human beings as human beings, then we will begin to understand what it means to be human. We murder to survive. Once we begin to live, murder, too will cease to be a part of our nomenclature. My God, look at that word, will you. You'd think I was educated, huh? Almost, but not plum. I am educated, just not the way society has defined it.[/quote]


When I use the word reality I mean to express 'what exists in total': i.e. not a moral belief, not an ideology, not a hope, but the actual facts of existence. I was in no way saying that 'reality' is unchanging or unchangeable. Reality is whatever the world is at any given time, and its always changing. Human nature can be changed, I never denied that. In fact, my only point was that if it is going to be changed, it has to changed with force, or at least coercion. The basic quality which we have now is, IMO, self-interest, which drives the rest of them. To change that some pretty drastic measures would have to taken, and those measures could not be compatible with individual freedom.

[quote]5. Inequality-The words, quality, equality and inequality, are all defined by standards our flawed human nature defines. You have mention on more than one occasion every one has the same opportunity to be what they want to be and that is patently false. That ideal has never existed. Never! One can be what he wants to be if he abides by the laws set forth by those who could care less about equality. Simply because the do not consider themselves equals; they are the "elite" and normal rules don't apply. They designed that educational system of which you deny, but yet are so dependent on as you use the terms "maoists, communists, fascists in an attempt to define equality and the failures they represent as a result of the enormous inequity present in the world. Eliminate the inequity, those words too will cease to exist along with prejudice, discrimination and racism. You know my list I so often refer to, we are eliminating it as I speak.[/quote]


Re the part I put in boldface, I never said that: not once. What I advocate is that everyone has the same opportunity in legal terms: i.e. such that no member of society has a privilege granted to him by society which the others do not. I am only concerned with equality before the law. As for the rest, once again all I hear is vague, utopian fantasy. What is the structure of the society which you would like to see? How will disagreements between people be settled? How will people obtain food, water, housing, etc.? Who will do the work?

[quote]5. Freedom-It has never existed on this planet. Oh sure you can be free if you obey the king who will grant you with land and title if you make good grades in those schools he has designed to support his lifestyle. If you make bad grades, your screwed. I know, I told the king long ago to kiss my ass. Cost me dearly, for then I had to fend for myself and become a renegade, commissioned salesman and live by my own set of rules and regulations relying on my talents of communication to make my way in the world. I was free of the constraints impose by the king to abide by his construct that bred inequality as we were conditioned to think those of lesser intellect or means did not deserve to be "free". They don't have what it takes to pay that "price", and what they were capable of was not of value to the king. If Feudalism rearing it's ugly head again. Well, I'll be. Fancy that![/quote]


Freedom is indeed an ideal, which has never existed in full. No one is completely free unless they are independent of everyone else: i.e. unless one can do everything one wants to do without any assistance from others. The person working within the king's system is not free, nor is the renegade salesmen. The only difference is who one interacts with and is dependent on, the king or the customers. You seem to think that if the system within which the individual works is created by the collective, rather than some corporate oligarch as in my country, then the individual is more free, less programmed, less servile. My point is that it doesn't matter who created or who operates the structure in which the individual exists; the issue is the relationship between that structure and the individual. In other words, there could be a totalitarian state run by bankers, or kings, or priests, or the demos, and its still a totalitarian state. I want to severely limit, in very clear and unambiguous terms, what power the societal structure has over the individual: i.e. that range of circumstances in which society can give the individual an order which he has to follow or face the brute force of the police.

[quote]6. Social-Now that's a word that has been bandied about when you look at all it's derivatives. Such as society. A social construct invented by the elites who are infected with the disease of "anti-socialism". They will be social with you if you rate. If you don't you are, here comes that word again, a pariah. An ignorant, no good, lazy parasitic waste of humanity who is using up our precious resources and is treated as such. I have got to calm down, my blood pressure is spiking. Ha. High society, my aching ass. Sorry, my human nature rearing it ugly and reacting to the constraints this "society" imposes.[/quote]

I used the term to express the idea of all the people interacting with one another, that's all.

[quote]In that structure must be incorporated a "rewards" system that encourages individual ideas, talents, gifts and knowledge that will enhance life on this planet, not seduce, tempt, control, rule and empower people to be something they are not.[/quote]

You've missed the whole problem. What 'enhances life on this plant?' Am I supposed to be subject to your idea of 'enhancement,' and vice versa? If you grant the collective, through its organs, like government, both the right to decide what is 'best' for society, and unlimited power to act on those decisions, then the result is totalitarianism by definition.

Due to time constraints I had to skip about 289-pages of the commentary on this thread but I think Nero's argument is captured in his statement, "The only objective of the state is guarding individual freedom."

This statement is sophomoric, even fallacious. It envisions a nation that doesn't exist, has never existed, could never exist. The state in fact struggles to balance individual freedom with collective rights and obligations. Without balancing both legitimate interests you simply won't have a functional nation. One of the benefits of democracy is that the electorate gets to determine where and how that balance ought to be struck.

Take a look at the Scandinavian countries. They are every bit as democratic as your United States, many would argue far more democratic (given that their legislators aren't bought and paid for by lobbyists). Yet in the exercise of their democracy, these societies have chosen to be governed under a form of moderate socialism. Guess what? They're doing far better than their American counterparts in almost every aspect of quality of life. They're still growing their societies whilst yours is in decay. They live longer. They're much healthier. Surveys show they're considerably happier and more satisfied with their lives.

In a genuine democracy, government doesn't decide, voters decide. It's more than strange that your view of democracy doesn't accord with that.

Democracy is tyranny. I don't distinguish between oppressive laws made by a dictator, a junta, a beaurocracy, or a population in the voting booths. The idea that the majority of people in any given nation should have the right to interfere in every citizens life in any way they deem fit is more than a little disturbing. The government should be elected by the people, but the government, as manifestation of the popular will, should not have unlimited powers.

BUT democracy can curb their powers and by the will of the people depose them..

And the will of the majority can and will suppress the will of the minority, another form of tyranny. Have you seriously never heard of the concept of tyranny of the majority/ I find that hard to believe.

Not if 'them' is the majority.

Any good leader understands that he/she functions to recognize and protect the minority from the tryranny of the majority. It's not all that difficult. In fact, it's done every day. We like to call it "compromise." It is how we reconcile competing interests and avoid descending into mob rule. Young people are prone to seeing situations in very black and white, absolutist (and simplistic) terms. It is why their opinions can tend to be blunt and strident. The experience that is aquired with age will teach you that very few things are as absolute as you now portend. Gradually you will come to understand that nuance, subtlety and compromise play a critical role in the functioning of both a government and its society.

Are you saying every citizen has the right to do whatever they want to do regardless of what the majority thinks? It seems as though that is what you are saying. So if it is not "of the people, by the people and for the people", what is it that would satisfy you, considering democracy, in your opinion is tyranny? What do you propose?

William

The majority of voters are floaters and morality governs most voters so a society by its majority governs by morality.A society only degenerates when it is not truly democratic, when excessive corporate power influences the populace by blatant propaganda.If democracy is abused its not the fault of the idea but the execution.We see it with 70,000 lobbyists in Washington distorting the democratic principles.Democratic socialism is the ideal system in my opinion but it is constantly being abused by the desires of those who dont abide by its principles.

I would say that self interest guides most voters, and lets face it, my self interest is not necessarily yours. I think that morality is in many ways static, and there are certain acts that are considered immoral for a very rational reason, such as murder or rape. What is important is that the system should force people to compromise and make no laws were no law needs making. We have to acknowledge and act on the wills of every party involved, the large and the small, to come to an acceptable solution to any problem or perceived problem.

I think that it is a good rule of thumb that laws should only be made when there is an act that demonstrably has adverse physical or economic affects in order to curb those aspect that adversely affect another individual or group(s) individuals of in against his/her/ their will.
-