Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Practical socialism 29
So, past all of the theorizing, what ends up happening in pretty much any political system you can name is that power gets concentrated, corrupts leaders, and ruin follows.
The act of trying to separate the theory of a system from the ensuing existential wreckage is among the more amusing acts one can watch other human beings undertake. No Christian wants to admit that Adolf himself made Christian utterances, for a bit of auto-Godwinism.
Thus when evaluating the goodness of a system of thought, I submit that not only should the abstract ideas be considered, but also the historical results of the ideas, and the subjective effects.
For my observation, Socialism offers some emotionally pleasing notions, but, like every single bureaucratic solution I've ever seen, winds up loving the problems it purports to "solve", and leads to stagnation.
Restated: you'll always have a statistical distribution of income. What matters not is that there are rich and poor (that's inevitable), but that there is a current flowing inside the distribution, so that people can reap as much/little as their genius and effort supports.
The big fib of Socialism is that, with just a few more pages of legislation, we can make that current flow "fairly".
Socialism, for some, seems a substitute for a proper faith in something that will endure beyond the final heartbeat.
What's your point? (Score:2)
The most reasonable thing you wrote
pretty much any political system you can name is that power gets concentrated, corrupts leaders, and ruin follows.
Suggests that no political system is any better than any other. If that is the case then how can you justify running around encouraging hatred towards systems that you don't understand, when you adm
Re: (Score:1)
encouraging hatred towards systems that you don't understand
Alternately, I understand them all too well. I'm not a tremendous scholar of Islam, either, having only read about half the Qur'an, but I understand the dynamics of how a subset of adherents have used it for nefarious purposes. What I encourage in both cases is careful thought, so that people understand that socialism, like a baby bottle given a child long past the time to graduate to sold food, helps lock people into dependencies that stunt their human growth. But, perhaps coincidentally, empower the 1% th
Re: (Score:2)
encouraging hatred towards systems that you don't understand
Alternately, I understand them all too well
No. You have demonstrated again and again that you don't have even the slightest bit of understanding of most of the political systems that you hate most deeply. Even more so you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning anything about them. Your intentional illiteracy - and your celebration of it - are well documented and noted.
I'm not a tremendous scholar of Islam
I never previously accused you of hating Islam. I'm not sure why you brought this up.
What I encourage in both cases is careful thought,
You would do well to try that sometime yourself.
so that people understand that socialism
You are at leas
Re: (Score:2)
it helps not to denigrate your readers too brutally (emphasis mine):
No. You have demonstrated again and again that you don't have even the slightest bit of understanding of most of the political systems that you hate most deeply. Even more so you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no interest in learning anything about them. Your intentional illiteracy - and your celebration of it - are well documented and noted.
Unless your task is to destroy interest in dialogue.
If you are not smitty, then you might be new to the discussion here.
The words I used were intentional and justified in regards to smitty's (lack of) knowledge on the topic that he is attempting to lecture on. Smitty very truly and honestly does not know the first thing about socialism. Even more so, he is very plainly and willfully ignorant on communism (even though he often tries to equate the two). There are many good examples of him demonstrating his ignorance (and his pride in it) in discussions w
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What that suggests to me is rather that the specific shape of the political system matters less than its bulk
By bulk are you referring to the number of people in the political system, or something else? While smitty does seem to advocate for a smaller government, that approach doesn't often work out all that well, either.
If instead the argument is that government is trying to help too many people (ie the country is so large that government from a federal level is impossible and should be abandoned), I don't necessarily disagree. I do think it is likely time to split our country up into 2 (or more) independe
Re: (Score:1)
I do think it is likely time to split our country up into 2 (or more) independent nations. Frankly I don't expect that our country will survive more than another 10-20 years without that happening anyways.
This may be the case (I'm nobody's prophet), but I do hope that a conventionofstates.com/ [slashdot.org] occurs before a split.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think it is likely time to split our country up into 2 (or more) independent nations. Frankly I don't expect that our country will survive more than another 10-20 years without that happening anyways.
This may be the case (I'm nobody's prophet), but I do hope that a conventionofstates.com/ occurs before a split.
You like to plug that website on about a weekly basis it seems; in fact you almost plug it more often than your own blog. What it overlooks of course is the fact that some people like a stronger federal government. Some people prefer the protections that come with a central government that helps to balance things between the states. If one instead pursues this philosophy of a highly neutered government many people will lose the freedoms and opportunities that they value the most.
Of course, you don't
Re: (Score:1)
What it overlooks of course is the fact that some people like a stronger federal government.
Are you referring to the way we can't balance a budget, the way we can's secure the southern border, or the way we have completely soiled ourselves on international policy matters of late?
Some people prefer the protections that come with a central government that helps to balance things between the states.
So you ARE espousing federalism, and not the collapse into a super-state?
If one instead pursues this philosophy of a highly neutered government many people will lose the freedoms and opportunities that they value the most.
Do you mean being buried under debt and unsustainable entitlements, or some other craven dependency on the capitol city of Xembibbi?
I have a hard time remembering that I am the ignorant one, since I woke up here in Zamboniland.
Re: (Score:2)
What it overlooks of course is the fact that some people like a stronger federal government.
Are you referring to the way we can't balance a budget
It is rather hard to balance a budget when a large population of the people tasked with doing that are hard-set ideologues who refuse to negotiate on what should be in the budget in any way, shape, or form. Believe it or not, democracy is supposed to involve compromise.
the way we can's secure the southern border
Well, the same states that want the federal budget to rapidly approach zero - and tend to receive the largest amount of federal spending per dollar collected in taxes - are asking for funding for border security from the federal government
Re: (Score:2)
[snarkiness]
What a brilliant opening, it really shows plainly the strength of your argument and how well rooted it is in reality.
It is rather hard to balance a budget when a large population of the people tasked with doing that are hard-set ideologues who refuse to negotiate on what should be in the budget in any way, shape, or form. Believe it or not, democracy is supposed to involve compromise.
Less snarkily, leadership, in general, is not about finger-pointing.
Believe it or not, there is plenty of finger pointing coming from both parties in DC. Your party is not by any means above it.
The notion of the entitlements being unsustainable is entirely manufactured.
Oh, well, then, why don't they make us all millionaires, then?
I wish you actually presented an argument there, instead of just more snarkiness. I would love to actually discuss this matter with you but that statement does not indicate any interest from you to do so.
I find you and your accusations of my ignorance completely laughable.
You certainly haven't yet countered by demonstrating knowle
Re: (Score:1)
Less snarkily, leadership, in general, is not about finger-pointing.
Believe it or not, there is plenty of finger pointing coming from both parties in DC. Your party is not by any means above it.
Indeed, that was my point, though the GOP is no more "my" party than the Dhimmicrats are yours.
I wish you actually presented an argument there, instead of just more snarkiness. I would love to actually discuss this matter with you but that statement does not indicate any interest from you to do so.
Seriously: it's all fiat money, and there is shag-all substantial economic basis for much of anything going on right now, in terms of monetary or fiscal policy. Question stands: WHY NOT just make us all millionaires?
You certainly haven't yet countered by demonstrating knowledge.
I shoot your third-grade arguments back to you, in kind, as I have time and inclination. Was there something else occurring here?
Re: (Score:2)
Less snarkily, leadership, in general, is not about finger-pointing.
Believe it or not, there is plenty of finger pointing coming from both parties in DC. Your party is not by any means above it.
Indeed, that was my point, though the GOP is no more "my" party than the Dhimmicrats are yours.
No. The GOP is certainly your party more than the current leaders of the democratic party are representative of mine. And your clever re-spelling is further indication that you don't actually want to discuss this.
Seriously: it's all fiat money
This is the first time I have ever seen you raise the "fiat money" strawman in discussion. If you seriously want to discuss that - and didn't just offer it up in desperation - then I ask you one simple question - where on earth can you find an example of non-fiat money that is in common use an
Re: (Score:1)
where on earth can you find an example of non-fiat money that is in common use and has an agreed-upon value?
While 'value' is an ebb-and-flow sort of thing, precious metals remain relatively more stable than the current regime of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, supporting the U.S. exporting its inflation abroad.
That is one issue where the country has a substantial basis to be ashamed.
I ask you third-grade level questions, to see if you have even third-grade level comprehension, and you generally show that you do not.
Oh Progressive moral superior! I throw myself at your feet and beg forgiveness for having the temerity to think that I could gainsay you! Wait: you're daft. Forget that noise.
Re: (Score:2)
where on earth can you find an example of non-fiat money that is in common use and has an agreed-upon value?
While 'value' is an ebb-and-flow sort of thing, precious metals remain relatively more stable than the current regime of the dollar as the world's reserve currency, supporting the U.S. exporting its inflation abroad.
Again, I ask you; where can you use such a currency? You can't buy much of anything with gold in most countries; you have to convert it to local currency in order to make an actual transaction. Few people have any idea of what its worth, and for that matter many people can't readily distinguish gold from pyrite so they would be better off rejecting both (analogous statements can be made for silver, platinum, etc).
I am not aware of a country that uses a non-fiat currency today. I have asked you direc
Re: (Score:1)
turning the absurdity up to 11, just because I dared challenge you to learn something
Your assertions that (a) you hold knowledge, (b) I lack such, and (c) I'm not even trying to learn, are really kind of insulting, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
turning the absurdity up to 11, just because I dared challenge you to learn something
Your assertions that (a) you hold knowledge, (b) I lack such, and (c) I'm not even trying to learn, are really kind of insulting, don't you think?
They would be if they were only assertions based on nothing. Being as they are observations based on words that you and I have actually written, no. You have shown repeatedly:
So in this case it is not insulting. Similarly if the Koch Brothers were to write a "Tea Party Manifesto" that described why they fo
Re: (Score:1)
And no, I'm not going to read every brain-dead reference you proffer, lest I join you. Go read Jonah Goldberg.
Re: (Score:1)
Any centralized, planned economy is a policy of failure.
As is everything that is dependent on the intellect of man. It's all very high maintenance. That's why your capitalism works so well. It requires no intellect, and certainly no "morality" of any kind. It is a natural predator and prey relationship. And all attempts to regulate it have been quite farcical at best. Can't expect much different when sociopathy is the dominant trait of those we support.
Re: (Score:2)
What's to know about Communism?
Well you could start by actually reading The Communist Manifesto, which spells out exactly what Marx wanted to accomplish with communism, and how.
Marx preached "the Kingdom of God, hold the God"
I'm not sure how, or why, you come to that conclusion. Just because you like to repeat it doesn't mean it is somehow connected to reality, though.
and Soviet Communism was essentially Naziism without such an overt anti-Semitic streak
More importantly neither were communism or socialism.
Any centralized, planned economy is a policy of failure.
You really don't have enough data to support that hypothesis.
And no, I'm not going to read every brain-dead reference you proffer
I have been consistently asking you to read just one piece of literature. It isn't even a long docu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the Commie Manifesto so important, you might offer a series of JEs highlighting key excerpts
I'm quite sure you could find other peoples' analyses of the Manifesto if you want. You have made a habit of not reading what I write here anyways so I see no purpose in making a series of JEs on the text.
Dare to educate, man.
I cannot force you to take in information. You are free to celebrate your ignorance if you so wish.
Re: (Score:1)
There is nothing extreme about nature. All systems are nominal.
Re: (Score:1)
It requires no intellect, and certainly no "morality" of any kind. It is a natural predator and prey relationship. And all attempts to regulate it have been quite farcical at best. Can't expect much different when sociopathy is the dominant trait of those we support.
Examples of cooperative ecosystems abound. Indeed, things veer into "sociopathy" when resources are constrained, which is an odd word choice following your 'no "morality" of any kind'. If it's all amoral, how do you gauge a sociopath? (Asking for a cereal killer).
Re: (Score:1)
how do you gauge a sociopath?
Practice, my dear, practice...
Re: (Score:1)
The number of people whose livelihoods depend on taxation, if that is what you mean by 'in the political system,' would be one good proxy for bulk. Another would be the percentage of GDP spent by government, either directly or indirectly (through mandates for example.)
"If instead the argument is that government is trying to help too many people (ie the country is so large that government from a federal level is i