Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

@RDRDRD1,

You only see the minorities abused where demcracy is not practiced. Democracy is only as strong as its wreakest member

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;78914 wrote:

BrightNoon, what you really fear is mob rule. A democracy that doesn't accommodate the interests of the minority really isn't a democracy at all. To prevent this we incorporate into our constitutions a set of specific rights and freedoms that the government, in representing the majority will, must not infringe or impair.

What you have described is a limited constitutional republic. That's all I want! However, that is NOT what I think Xris is speaking for, and certainly not what the progressive socialists speak for. How do I know this? It's as simple as this; if the highest criterion by which to evaluate the legality/appropriateness of a policy is whether or not it infringes upon the rights of the individual as stated in the constitution (include in this the rights NOT granted government), then we have a limited republic; if the highest criterion is whether or not the policy serves the higher good, i.e. if there is a balancing or weighing of individual against collective right (as determined by the government) then we have socialism/social democracy and the rights of the individual are essentially meaningless: i.e. in effect only until the collective weighs them out of existence when faced with some important challenge which seems insurmountable without the abrogation of those rights: a depression, a war, a terror threat, etc. If we decide that rights can, in some cases when the jeopardy to the entire community is so great, be ignored, then no one has rights. They only mean anything when there IS a reasonable argument against eliminating them, during a war e.g.; in good times, when there is no threat to the community, there's no reason to eliminate rights, and its easy to grant them, they're not needed. -Great, when the government doesn't need money and enjoys a huge surplus, you're safe from unreasonable seizures of property. But if the government is in debt and needs funds, then not so much.-the right is only needed when the action which it prohibits is likely to happen! The socialists/collectivists have got it backwards; the right is only appropriate when it doesn't conflict too greatly with the common good.

I think the entire argument comes down to collectivism vs. individualism. That's all there is. If one believes the role fo government is to ensure the greatest net prosperity, happiness, security, etc. of the people, then one is a collectivist. If one believes that the government's role is primarily to guard the rights of the individual and then to provide the minimum environment in which prosperity, happiness, and security may exist, but to let the chips fall where the free citizens have put them, then one is an individualist. Anyone who believes man has a destiny or a higher purpose finds collectivism more appealing, because it alone allows humans to be managed and directed collectively toward some purpose higher than themselves. The modern trick is to make the people think they are working for a higher purpose, or for the betterment of mankind in general, when in fact they are working for a few arrogant and all-powerful masters. Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

You are inventing a social government of your own fears not the reality that has manifested itself on many occassions.The freedom of the individual has always been the driving force of socialism.It has tried to temper capitalism's excesses when the individuals needs have been threatened by corporate greed.The weakest, is its cause,i judge a community by how it treats its least not its most successful.
It is a refuge for the poor and underprivileged,it places community above all else.Its only weakness is it can be abused by those who feign weakness and abuse the system.It does have debatable and devising issues but then all systems have such problems.

1 Reply

@xris,

Xris wrote:

it places community above all else

Exactly. I realize Xris that I'm talking theoretically. Most of the social democracies in the world are pretty liberal in terms of indivuidual rights. But I don't see an essential diffeenc between what we might call political rights (assembly, speech, voting, freedom from searches, etc.) and economic rights (the right to own property chief among them). If a basic tenet of your socialism is to ensure that all are protected from corporate greed, then property rights are not intact. The only way in which a corporation can abuse the people, in my mind, is by manipulating the markets via arrangements with the government. In a free market there is no way for corporations to do such things. If you simply object to obscene profits, then you don't believe in private property, or accept the idea of private property only to the extent that it doesn't hurt the collective.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

When it comes to property rights there is nothing at all wrong with distinguishing the human individual from the corporate person. Both are recognized as "persons" at law thanks to a very convenient and highly strained legal fiction but the corporate person avoids most of the responsibilities shouldered by the individual as part of citizenship. It could be argued that corporations seek all the rights and privileges of citizenship without any of the burdens. Consider the example of major American corporations that made sizeable profits serving both sides in WWII.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;79032 wrote:

Exactly. I realize Xris that I'm talking theoretically. Most of the social democracies in the world are pretty liberal in terms of indivuidual rights. But I don't see an essential diffeenc between what we might call political rights (assembly, speech, voting, freedom from searches, etc.) and economic rights (the right to own property chief among them). If a basic tenet of your socialism is to ensure that all are protected from corporate greed, then property rights are not intact. The only way in which a corporation can abuse the people, in my mind, is by manipulating the markets via arrangements with the government. In a free market there is no way for corporations to do such things. If you simply object to obscene profits, then you don't believe in private property, or accept the idea of private property only to the extent that it doesn't hurt the collective.

I hope that laws laid down might stop these excesses without hindering free enterprize.I object to any government allowing exploitation by illegal means.I object to utilities being held by private companies, as they are as essential as breathing.I object to monopolies and in the uk we all suffer from them.There is no such thing as excessive profits,only the judgement of the means.
As for land ownership i have never been convinced one way or the other of its value in private or government control.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Excessive profits are the Holy Grail of monopoly. Business is inherently predatory, seeking to compete in order to eliminate competition. That's why many modern states legislate against monopoly, combines and anti-competitive processes. Corporations are ill suited to deal with moral values, right or wrong. We expect individuals to act morally.

Corporations, as a vehicle to conduct trade, are a relatively new phenom and yet we treat them as though they were inscribed on the tablets Moses brought down from the mountain. In small steps we've gradually come to "life the corporate veil" but I think we may find it worthwhile to revisit corporate law on a grander scale to bring it into line with life and society in the 21st century.

0 Replies

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;78674 wrote:

That amounts to this: independently wealthy people and retirees can't vote. Adults who are smarter and more informed than you or myself would be restricted from voting because they are only 25.

Yup, certainly there can be exception rules for example for retirees but basically it would come down to the independently wealthy not having a vote if thy don't pay taxes.

What about this: Voting rights to everyone as it is now but we get a proportional amount of votes to the amount of taxes we pay. That includes all taxes.
If you disagree I have a question: Why does the state get to take disproportional amounts of our income yet we all get the same influence to decide over it?

Zetetic11235;78674 wrote:

The civics test is ultimately irrelevant. A person with Down's could pass a very easy test (since it would come down to memorizing a few facts). I have friends who are certainly plenty smart who voted for Obama, who I am sure you would disagree with.

The test might even be 20 questions that are known to everyone, merely to scrape off the 5% that are not even willing to look into a brochure for 5 minutes.

---------- Post added 07-23-2009 at 11:33 PM ----------

xris;78945 wrote:

You only see the minorities abused where demcracy is not practiced. Democracy is only as strong as its wreakest member

If democracy is practiced, 51% can take away the rights of the minority.
Hence I don't fully understand how you can say that minorities are only abused where democracy is not practiced.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Give me an example where minorities are abused in a democracy?

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EN - try to distinguish between mob rule and democracy, they're not synonamous as you suggest. Democracy is a much more flexible, complex and dynamic structure than you're prepared to recognize. I doubt you can actually imagine a state in which 51 per cent of the elctorate was able to "take away the rights of a minority." Perhaps you can give examples of this democracy you describe, real tangible examples.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;79096 wrote:

Give me an example where minorities are abused in a democracy?

Anyone in a tax bracket above the lowest

(inequality before the law)

Anyone who pays federal taxes on income at all

(unconstitutional tax)

Individuals who have had their library or financial records peeped at by Fed's without warrants, since the Patriot Act was passed

Anyone whose phone was tapped without a warrant, or who was detained at the airport again his wishes but not under arrest, anyone who was a victim of extraordinary rendition, or a guest at Guantanamo, anyone put on the 'no fly, no buy' list

(violation of the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and thirteenth amendments)

Anyone who has been drafted.

(violation of the thirteenth amendment)

Anyone arrested on any federal drug charges.

Anyone whose business or private affairs were affected by federal economic regulations regarding anything other than interstate commerce, in the strictest sense of the phrase

(no constitutional basis for federal drug prohibition, or economic regulation beyond narrowly defined interstate commerce)

Anyone who was required to license or register a gun, or who was otherwise restricted by gun laws, or who was penalized for not obeying such laws

(violation of the 2nd amendment)

In all of those cases, a majority, or an apparent majority anyway, decided that, while these various rights are important, they are outweighed by the higher good, the common good, in one form or another: safety from terrorism, economic justice, the fear of drug addicts and moral decline, etc.) A minority does not have to a be a unified group, like blacks, women, Hindus; a minority is simply a segment of the population which is being dictated to by a larger, more influential segment of the population.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

It's pretty hard to establish any of these things as abuse of a minority when you're referencing equality, the application of the same laws to all regardless of whether they're within the minority or majority. Also you should probably define the scope of "abuse" as you seem to extend it to criminal prosecution of crystal meth producers and traffickers. Surely if you're to consider that sort of thing as abusive you'll be content with nothing less than a nation without laws. Prohibiting one segment of the population from preying on another is not abusive simply because the predator class represents a minority.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;79139 wrote:

It's pretty hard to establish any of these things as abuse of a minority when you're referencing equality, the application of the same laws to all regardless of whether they're within the minority or majority.

So one can only be an oppressed minority if one belongs to a racial, ethnic, religious, political, etc. group that's a minority? No no. The fact is that in a democracy where majority rules there can be oppression of a minority (e.g. people who believe in the literal meaning of the second amendment) which has nothing to do with group or identity politics, which, by the way, is a sham that does nothing but divide us irrationally and keeps racism alive. Anyway, the most oppressed minority might be a minority of one. Let's say I start writing pamphlets glorifying Hitler, telling everyone they're gay, and declaring my desire to boink their children. Yep, I might have my freedom of speech taken from me. Am I not an oppressed minority? Am I not being treated differently under the law because I am not numerically enough to oppose such actions at the polls?

Any person or persons which are treated by a different law than others or which are being denied rights along with everyone else, but which rights only they apparently value, and which is having this imposed upon them by a democratic majority, is an oppressed minority.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Sorry BrightNoon but I think you're straining logic to the breaking point. What you envision is a world without social structure or stricture, a world so bereft of order that it would make an anarchist shudder. You seem to configure freedom from oppression of a minority as a world where everyone would be either predator or prey; a world where neither you nor anyone else would ever enjoy a truly safe moment, genuine hell on earth. Every lifeform accepts some degree of structure and conformity. Without it there would be no procreation, no life. Simply because some may not want this structure that, alone, does not make it oppressive.

de minimis non curat lex

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;79096 wrote:

Give me an example where minorities are abused in a democracy?

I did so earlier.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4203-socialism-moved-grapes-wrath-33.html#post78635

And BrightNoon made a fine list that I largely agree with.

Practically all our concerns in this modern world are of the kind that we have to scale back or individual rights for the sake of the collective.
Paying taxes, driving on the correct side of the road, sorting our garbage.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

You're really belabouring the notion of "abuse" to the point where it becomes nonsensical.

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero;79159 wrote:

I did so earlier.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/4203-socialism-moved-grapes-wrath-33.html#post78635

And BrightNoon made a fine list that I largely agree with.

Practically all our concerns in this modern world are of the kind that we have to scale back or individual rights for the sake of the collective.
Paying taxes, driving on the correct side of the road, sorting our garbage.

How in heavens name can you call these minorities..in your view everyone is a minority at some time in their lives.If I was to drive the biggest car in the country you could say im being victimized by the tax system ,your logic astounds me.I wonder what type of world we would live if you had control.Could you explain how your system would work without the need to drive by certain agreed highway rules.Do you actually think before you write?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;79204 wrote:

How in heavens name can you call these minorities..in your view everyone is a minority at some time in their lives.If I was to drive the biggest car in the country you could say im being victimized by the tax system ,your logic astounds me.I wonder what type of world we would live if you had control.Could you explain how your system would work without the need to drive by certain agreed highway rules.Do you actually think before you write?

I did not say I wish to abolish all victimization of individual freedom for the sake of the greater good, I merely want to limit the collectives strain of the individual as far as possible.
Yes, I agree there have to be highway rules. Also we do not have the "freedom" to stab others, there are many "rights" that I favor taking from the individual with concern for the greater good.
My system would work limiting the restrictions by collectivism on individual freedom as far as it is realistically possible.
I said it before: I only want the government to protect individual freedom. If you could point out a flaw with idea, I invite you to point that out. (A government objective that I am in favor of that could not be counted as protecting individual freedom.) I already agreed that I favor some degree of public schooling.
For example I do not wish to be forced to charity by the government through my taxes.
That does not mean that I am against being social, charity will continue to exist, just not driven by the government.
I believe that charity is a good thing and will continue to help even better if nor done by the government in order to enhance it's power.

Edit: Looking back at history, from the Persian empire to the nazis, isn't it fair to say that more people were harmed by a powerful government than it benefited?
All the while two nations I can intuitively come up with that were founded with the intention of being a system that limits government, the Roman and American empires, were some of the most prosperous ans successful in history?

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

I think this discussion has descended to a degree of whimsy atop a very shakey, even facile grasp of constitutional law. BrightNoon, for example, condemns any "federal economic regulation" not specifically related to interstate transport. If you're going to oust or annul federal jurisdiction because it has an economic impact, don't bother getting out of bed tomorrow morning. You won't like what you're going to see when you step out your front door should you or your loved ones make it that far.

No society will succeed, even survive, without a constantly adjusted balance between collective and individual rights and responsibilities. Being humans it is part of our condition to each hold his own perspective of the ideal balance. But here's the trick. In a democracy it is the voters, collectively I suppose, who get to express in a very loose manner their view of where that balance should be struck. They NEVER choose one to the exclusion of the other, one view to be deemed paramount over the other "as far as realistically possible." Who, after all, gets to decide what is realistic, the Courts?

If only we could harness the energy of those who complain about laws until they abruptly find themselves in need of their help or protection, we might just have an answer to global warming. Laws are terrible until you truly make the effort to grasp their need, their intent and their purpose. Laws are superfluous intrusions so long as you can convince yourself that you inhabit a black and white world instead of a reality bedevilled with unknowns, unforeseens and uncertainties that all too often arrive in subtle shades of grey.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;79155 wrote:

Sorry BrightNoon but I think you're straining logic to the breaking point. What you envision is a world without social structure or stricture, a world so bereft of order that it would make an anarchist shudder. You seem to configure freedom from oppression of a minority as a world where everyone would be either predator or prey; a world where neither you nor anyone else would ever enjoy a truly safe moment, genuine hell on earth. Every lifeform accepts some degree of structure and conformity. Without it there would be no procreation, no life. Simply because some may not want this structure that, alone, does not make it oppressive.

de minimis non curat lex

I agree, the existence of a societal structure backed by force (law) not to one's liking does not constitute oppression. That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that certain rights without which any system is oppressive, such as the right to free speech, are denied certain individuals or groups, because those individuals or groups (not necessarily a racially, religiously, or otherwise homogeneous group) are a numerical minority whose opinions the numerical, majority does not like. For example, during the last presidential campaign, there were several instances in which protesters were forbidden to use public land, parks generally, to protest the candidate giving a speech nearby. Instead, they were generously escorted to 'free speech zones' where they could make their unpopular commotion out of sight. The same thing happens at all the G8 summit meetings. That is oppression, and the entity being oppressed is a minority. Hence, oppression of a minority...in a democracy.

1 Reply

Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know