Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Loren Pechtel]

True Scotsmen do what you want.

Thus what you really want is control, not freedom. Freedom includes the freedom to do something else.

How exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is called a dodge.

You want to talk about oligarchy with a few democratic trappings and call it democracy.

My terms are "whatever definition of democracy you would actually say is a democracy." Since you think the USA doesn't qualify, then not the USA.

The hidden term is that you think your democracy would never do anything wrong. By saying "your definition but it is doing something wrong", technically you are reading "it doesn't do anything wrong and it is doing something wrong, that is a contradiction".

You keep dodging this, over and over and over.

Hypothetical country that you would actually say is a democracy. It exists in a land called Utopia. In Utopia, you actually have your functioning democracy that goes all the way down to the workplace, everything that you want people to vote on is voted on.

It has the economy you think it should have, with absolutely no concentrated wealth and no bosses. By some miracle it works, since even in hypothetical land it is hard to make that work. Yes, the ideal society as designed by a 6 year old. If you moved there you'd say "this is paradise".

Then, one day, a serpent entered the Garden of Eden. And this serpent managed to upset society enough that the majority called a vote to suppress the rights of the minority. This vote hasn't happened yet, but it is being organized. What do you do at this time to stop it?

Do you crucify yourself to yourself in order to forgive the masses for preparing to call this vote?

 

[untermensche]

True Scotsmen do what you want.

Thus what you really want is control, not freedom. Freedom includes the freedom to do something else.

How exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

Dodge.

Again, how exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

You say with one side of your mouth I want control.

Then with your other side you say something about me labeling things. Totally dodging my answer.

There is no rational connection between anything you say.

I want a functioning bottom up democracy, where leaders come from the bottom and work their way up. Where leaders understand what those at the bottom go through.

Not what we have now where politicians are bought by the highest bidder.

And that would not in any way make me a ruler of anybody.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

Dodge.

Again, how exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

You tell them how to vote and they dare not disobey. The ballot only contains options you approve of.

 

[untermensche]

That is called a dodge.

You want to talk about oligarchy with a few democratic trappings and call it democracy.

My terms are "whatever definition of democracy you would actually say is a democracy." Since you think the USA doesn't qualify, then not the USA.

What I say is history is filled with evil minorities that do things like create a slave society.

And when that society that a minority started exists for a few centuries the attitudes of the majority are polluted.

And it takes time for that pollution to degrade.

The majority is the great cleanser of the pollution created by evil minorities.

The hidden term is that you think your democracy would never do anything wrong.

Are you claiming destruction of the environment and eventually all large life is not doing something wrong.

An evil minority of economic dictators are destroying the planet.

And because they own governments the majority cannot do what it would like to do to turn things around.

What the world needs is democracy and more democracy.

And in the workplace especially.

- - - Updated - - -

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

Dodge.

Again, how exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

You tell them how to vote and they dare not disobey. The ballot only contains options you approve of.

I tell who how to vote?

 

[arkirk]

What I say is history is filled with evil minorities that do things like create a slave society.

And when that society that a minority started exists for a few centuries the attitudes of the majority are polluted.

And it takes time for that pollution to degrade.

The majority is the great cleanser of the pollution created by evil minorities.

The hidden term is that you think your democracy would never do anything wrong.

Are you claiming destruction of the environment and eventually all large life is not doing something wrong.

An evil minority of economic dictators are destroying the planet.

And because they own governments the majority cannot do what it would like to do to turn things around.

What the world needs is democracy and more democracy.

And in the workplace especially.

- - - Updated - - -

If it doesn't do what you want it's not democratic.

Dodge.

Again, how exactly would I gain control by giving control to a democratic majority?

You tell them how to vote and they dare not disobey. The ballot only contains options you approve of.

I tell who how to vote?

Jason Harvest Dancer thinks (or at least believes) that anybody who would approve of government would make sure that no government would exist unless it was what he approves. What Untermensche is saying is true. Unstressed humans generally harbor good will for their fellow men.He is assuming that we humans can only do ill on our planet, and to each other. He thinks that man apparently is doomed to repeat old mistakes, and you better keep it that way? What's the matter? Have you ever thought that maybe there are a few things we can agree on and do better as a result? If you never try and you never trust others, you will come to believe in and enforce untrustworthiness...your own included. For ust to make real headway on existential human problems, we need a wide field of human agreement and cooperation. Participating honestly in democracy will always be an act of faith. Those who choose untrustworthiness not only lose their cause, they burden those who act in good faith, making their tasks harder.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Harvest Dancer thinks (or at least believes) that anybody who would approve of government would make sure that no government would exist unless it was what he approves.

No. I'm simply trying to get untermensche to answer a simple straightforward question. He chooses to dodge it instead.

You are assuming that we humans can only do ill on our planet, and to each other.

No. Assuming that they can do ill is not the same as assuming they can only do ill. If you were more careful in your analysis you'd see that in unter's utopia once we achieve "true democracy" that he is assuming the cannot do ill anymore.

If you never try and you never trust others, you will come to believe in and enforce untrustworthiness...your own included.

Which has nothing to do with my question.

I assume about 97% of the population is well intended, but there is hidden in that 97% is a 3% that cares nothing for others and would without remorse harm others for their own personal gain. The problem with people is that it is not easy to detect that 3% until they actually do something. Sometimes that 3% can be persuasive and lie and manipulate others into doing harm under the pretext of doing good.

You have been doing a spectacularly bad job of reading my mind so far. Care to try again?

 

[arkirk]

Jason: part of your argument against majority rules is that there is 3% of us who are rotten to the core and will destroy anything we do. Your argument is to let them have their way, denying others the fruits of their labor. Letting them cheat and get away without accounting to the majority of society. That is exactly the same argument that we are hearing about the 1%. Let Trump and Bezos and the like own us? Do you think it's okay that we drop drone bombs on people somewhere in the world we don't even know about? Do you think it is okay to give up on democracy? I think you need to take a closer look at yourself and how you have come to these values.

 

[untermensche]

I'm simply trying to get untermensche to answer a simple straightforward question. He chooses to dodge it instead.

The underlying assumptions of your question is that humans are generally evil and deranged.

Absolute nonsense.

That is a minority of people.

And when minorities rule for too long, like in the US, the majority can become polluted by the crimes of a minority.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Jason: part of your argument against majority rules is that there is 3% of us who are rotten to the core and will destroy anything we do. Your argument is to let them have their way, denying others the fruits of their labor.

No it isn't, you've failed at mind-reading again. My question is how they would be dealt with in untermensche's utopia, where he believes that they would find it impossible to do any wrong.

Do you think it is okay to give up on democracy? I think you need to take a closer look at yourself and how you have come to these values.

Where do you see me giving up on democracy?

I'm simply trying to get untermensche to answer a simple straightforward question. He chooses to dodge it instead.

The underlying assumptions of your question is that humans are generally evil and deranged.

See? Now you've given untermensche ideas and yet another way to dodge the question. My assumption isn't that humans are generally evil and deranged. Your assumption is that if we establish your utopia that there will be absolutely no evil people at all. The fact that I think that some will still exist makes you think I am saying that everyone is like that. I am not saying everyone is like that.

Absolute nonsense.

Your telling me what is my underlying assumption is indeed absolute nonsense.

That is a minority of people.

And sometimes a minority can sway a majority, but you refuse to believe that can happen in utopia.

 

[untermensche]

My assumption isn't that humans are generally evil and deranged. Your assumption is that if we establish your utopia that there will be absolutely no evil people at all. The fact that I think that some will still exist makes you think I am saying that everyone is like that. I am not saying everyone is like that.

You go off the rails when you talk about utopia.

It is all about where power resides and the danger of it residing there.

You want power to reside in a minority.

That is what we call dictatorship.

That is a minority of people.

And sometimes a minority can sway a majority, but you refuse to believe that can happen in utopia.

The minority can sway the majority if it given the power to do so and if the majority has no defense because it is powerless.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You want power to reside in a minority.

That is a false assumption based on you inability to answer my question.

And sometimes a minority can sway a majority, but you refuse to believe that can happen in utopia.

The minority can sway the majority if it given the power to do so and if the majority has no defense because it is powerless.

That is not the only way a minority might sway a majority.

 

[untermensche]

That is a false assumption based on you inability to answer my question.

Nonsense. Power can either reside in a majority or a minority. There is nothing else.

The minority can sway the majority if it given the power to do so and if the majority has no defense because it is powerless.

That is not the only way a minority might sway a majority.

Tell me another way.

Show me that time a majority had power and some minority made them do evil.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nonsense. Power can either reside in a majority or a minority. There is nothing else.

You assume that I want power to reside in a minority, because I ask you questions that you can't answer.

That is not the only way a minority might sway a majority.

Tell me another way.

Religious fervor. Hysteria.

Show me that time a majority had power and some minority made them do evil.

It has been done, but never by True Scotsmen.

 

[untermensche]

You assume that I want power to reside in a minority, because I ask you questions that you can't answer.

No I assume you want power to reside in a minority because you have some delusions you cannot support about a majority.

What was the last decision a majority of Americans made?

There is very little belief in democracy in the US. Most people don't even bother with it. Because the majority knows things are rigged by a minority.

Religious fervor. Hysteria.

That is why you build a tall tall wall between church and state.

Next.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You assume that I want power to reside in a minority, because I ask you questions that you can't answer.

No I assume you want power to reside in a minority because you have some delusions you cannot support about a majority.

The proposition that there are times when a majority has persecuted a minority has been supported.

Yet you refuse to answer a simple question.

There is very little belief in democracy in the US. Most people don't even bother with it. Because the majority knows things are rigged by a minority.

We've already established that your utopia isn't the US.

Religious fervor. Hysteria.

That is why you build a tall tall wall between church and state.

So you are going to forbid people from voting in accordance with their religious beliefs?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

unter, democracy is best when there is a constitution that protects minorities.

Jason, what's better than a constitutional democracy with a constitution that is very hard to change? Fascism, anarchy? Rugged individuals living out in the wilderness like in Brokeback Mountain? What exactly are you suggesting? If you don't have something better, then what is all the complaining about?

That is why you build a tall tall wall between church and state.

So you are going to forbid people from voting in accordance with their religious beliefs?

Jason, why did you just take separation of church and state out of context? Are you really against it so trying to force it into something else? OR did you make a mistake in interpretation?

 

[arkirk]

No it isn't, you've failed at mind-reading again. My question is how they would be dealt with in untermensche's utopia, where he believes that they would find it impossible to do any wrong.



Where do you see me giving up on democracy?

I'm simply trying to get untermensche to answer a simple straightforward question. He chooses to dodge it instead.

The underlying assumptions of your question is that humans are generally evil and deranged.

See? Now you've given untermensche ideas and yet another way to dodge the question. My assumption isn't that humans are generally evil and deranged. Your assumption is that if we establish your utopia that there will be absolutely no evil people at all. The fact that I think that some will still exist makes you think I am saying that everyone is like that. I am not saying everyone is like that.

Absolute nonsense.

Your telling me what is my underlying assumption is indeed absolute nonsense.

That is a minority of people.

And sometimes a minority can sway a majority, but you refuse to believe that can happen in utopia.

Why do you reassert the idea that democracy can be used to promote unfairness so often if you don't believe that is the usual outcome of democracy. People who believe in God will never be truly democratic. They have cosmic commands from their gods who were invented to support dictatorships of various stripes. Moses ordered two people in his tribe to be executed because they sought firewood on the sabbath. If all the people were asked, he perhaps could have raised a majority vote to execute the firewood gatherers...because people tend to vote in accordance with their beliefs. What I have been saying about socialism and democracy is that it cannot function too well without some agreement on the human significance only of things voted on. People cannot vote non-reality into reality, even with a 99% vote in favor. That's why I have to always ad the proviso that it be done only for humane or humanistic purposes. I remain reserved as to its workability with people who accept authoritarian gods or human leaders.

Of course those who are fundamentlist clearly will not accept democracy so the question of their functioning in a democracy would be moot. Note that Jehovah's Witnesses DO NOT VOTE. They at least leave the field open for others who might be fairer than them. The people you would condemn as making democracy not work already are opposed to democracy itself and should not pretend to participate. Their judgments of their fellow men will be unfair and biased by severe pronouncements of their god.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Because, arkirk, at the root Democracy is a form, not a function, of government. It is how government is put together, not what it does.

My concern, my chief concern, is what a government does. As a firm believer in individual liberty, my concern is how the government will protect or violate individual liberty. Whether it is a democracy or a monarchy, I want a government that protects individual liberty. While a democracy is more likely to do so, it is not guaranteed to do so. I bring up this point "so often" because untermensche believes it cannot happen. It can happen, it has happened, it will happen again. Since I want to protect individual liberty, I want it to not happen. Saying "but it can't happen" doesn't address the point, it evades the point. And you are enabling untermensche's evasion.

Untermensche can't tell the difference between form and function. Not only are they different, you can make a grid out of them with four extremes.

Liberal            Enlightened Monarchy ---------- Liberal Democracy
                    |                                 |
                    |                                 |
Function            |                                 |
                    |                                 |
                    |                                 |
Authoritarian      Absolute Despot --------------- Mob Rule

                   Few People        Form          Many People

Untermensche believes only two of the four corners exist. Any examples that show the bottom-right corner exists is dismissed with his use of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[untermensche]

You are deluded.

You do not have arguments.

You have made up charts based on no evidence.

What was the last thing a majority of Americans voted for?