Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

But it is still not necessarily maintained by brute force. It can be contractual.

And how do you "enforce" a contract if not by, as a last resort, using some type of force? If the contract cannot be enforced, then it really is not a contract.

And how do you "enforce" a contract if not by, as a last resort, using some type of force? If the contract cannot be enforced, then it really is not a contract.

I meant that people may agree to act collectively. Of course contracts do require enforcement, I misspoke.

Instead of enforce, the appropriate word would have been "coerce".

Firstly, every major collectivst movement has been sponsored by high finance, and so those movements, while their slogans were communistic, were in fact fascistic.

Secondly, the idea that a government with the power to do anything to promote the common interest, and the power to define what 'common interest' means, won't become authoritarian and corrupt is nothing but utopian fantasy. We can hope and theorize that someday, somehow, mankind will become virtuous and we can entrust our lives to benign rulers, but for now, all history shows the opposite, and so I'll look after myself thanks.

Im of to Croatia for a break so i will be gone for a while, but i will be sharpening my pencil for my return...thanks xris..

So global warming is our 'Reichstag fire'? (The excuse that was used for the nazis to take power.)
And what would giving up our individual freedom for this collectivism help?
"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."

I take my chances with fricking global warming before I sign away my freedoms to the common good (=the aristocracy).

Why is your response always the exageration of what is proposed by others ? Why do you drop confrontational remarks into a debate which are not relevant to those being debated ? global warming , muslim relations. If you want to prove global warming is a myth go to the appropriate forum or the british appeasement of muslims, start a new thread.

I would not consider any form of government without democratic safe guards, so to give examples i do not approve of, is not valid.
I do not approve of Muslims being allowed the right to have sharia courts in a secular country.

Yes i do drink tea constantly but not as much as red wine.

Global warming is a proven fact but a few, for personal reasons, are disputing the causes...

Democracy is never so important than when its threatened and then men will die for the privilege of not bothering to vote.
Who did president Bush appeal to then? yes i hate the big bag of money buys votes system, but try changing it without destroying democracy.

Well first of all, the US is not a democracy, it is a republic.

You can change it by not allowing congress to determine how funds are spent. Take handling of money out of the hands of government and you will solve about 90% of the corruption in the government. If there is no money to lobby for then lobbyists will go away.

Every single one of them?

Harmony Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brook Farm (Boston, Massachusetts) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fruitlands (transcendental center) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oneida Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Twin Oaks Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are just a few communities to look at, all of which lacked high finance sponsorship.

And to say that all major movements were sponsored by high finance is just too far. You should know better.

"It just can't work" is not much of a reason to believe that a collectivist society cannot work.

You know as well as I do: a great many collectivist theorists spoke about the need for small, local communities. Perhaps this is key to success?

You said it yourself: a collectivist government has never been tried, not a true one. So how can history possibly show something about something that has never existed? How could history, for example, show that unicorns are ornery beasts when there has never been a unicorn to observe?

I hear that claim, that colllectivism cannot be discounted because true collectivism (egalitarian communism) has never been put into effect, and I smile. Why? That argument, while understandable and seemingly fair, has to assume that in fact ideal collectivism CAN be put into effect, and that any attempt to do so doesn't neccessarily lead to the sort of totalitarian-fascistic collectivism we have seen in reality. I don't think it can. Firstly, every major collectivst movement has been sponsored by high finance, and so those movements, while their slogans were communistic, were in fact fascistic. Secondly, the idea that a government with the power to do anything to promote the common interest, and the power to define what 'common interest' means, won't become authoritarian and corrupt is nothing but utopian fantasy. We can hope and theorize that someday, somehow, mankind will become virtuous and we can entrust our lives to benign rulers, but for now, all history shows the opposite, and so I'll look after myself thanks.

Mr. Fight the Power,
We do not need to 'cease speaking altogether.' We don't even need to stop making moral statements, however appparently nonsensical. We just need to recognize that such statements, or any statements for that matter, are not true, or not able to be proved true in any case. I would reformat your thought as, 'if we demand that all statement issued be truth, we should stop speaking altogether.' That's the great thing about relativism. Some people see it as neccessarily limiting expression (a relativst won't make moral statements e.g.), but rather it enables one to make competely subjective statements of any kind, with the understanding that they are in fact subjective statements. In other words, the only difference between the relativist and the dogmatic believer is that the relativist understands that his statements are not true, and makes them anyway. In the same way, I recognize that life is essentially meaningless, devoid of higher purpose or external justification, and yet I don't blow my head off...why? Because I can live for the sake of living, just as I can make a statement without feeling burdened by a lack of proof that it's true.

Mr. Fight the Power, I'm looking for one of your quotes and I can't find it.
Something like "Variation is the benefit and price of freedom."
Do you remember it?