Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now will you tell us what you would do to prevent the majority from voting to remove rights from the minority?

In what democracy are you talking about?

Maybe this?

Muslims sue Michigan town that refused permission for a mosque

I'd love to see how Untermensche describes this as not Democracy. Because it was the democratically elected city officials who voted instead of the town as a whole?

Georgia city votes to ban mosque but allow churches

Here's another one.

I said you need a Bill of Rights.

So now you admit that without that bill of rights, it is possible that the majority could vote to strip rights away from the minority. You say that the safeguard is Bill of Rights and Courts, just like any anarchist wouldn't say.

These things clearly violate the First Amendment.

Did you know that the amendment process could be used to repeal the bill of rights?

Also, you might find this interesting, I have a suspicion that you don't know what it means.

 No true Scotsman

 

[untermensche]

I said you need a Bill of Rights.

So now you admit that without that bill of rights, it is possible that the majority could vote to strip rights away from the minority. You say that the safeguard is Bill of Rights and Courts, just like any anarchist wouldn't say.

A Bill of Rights is how you protect everybody equally.

It protects from dictators not a democratic majority in a fair decent society that does not allow dictatorships in any form.

As long as the dominant institutions are dictatorial you have a society polluted by the power of dictators.

Dictators of wealth that use that wealth to pay lobbyists to influence the government are still dictators.

Did you know that the amendment process could be used to repeal the bill of rights?

Yes.

That is how the right to own slaves was ended.

That is the only way to progress.

 

[arkirk]

A Bill of Rights is how you protect everybody equally.

It protects from dictators not a democratic majority in a fair decent society that does not allow dictatorships in any form.

As long as the dominant institutions are dictatorial you have a society polluted by the power of dictators.

Dictators of wealth that use that wealth to pay lobbyists to influence the government are still dictators.

Did you know that the amendment process could be used to repeal the bill of rights?

Yes.

That is how the right to own slaves was ended.

That is the only way to progress.

I think you are missing an important point, Jason. Without humanistic values as the basis of a constitution, you have nothing. You will not be happy. Minorities you may wish to suppress will not be happy. Our constitution was not established on the basis of humanism. It was a document prepared by slave holders, indentured servant owners, and privileged landowners. The rights it guaranteed were rights to continue exploiting people and land. It was totally inadequate...so inadequate that as late as the 1940's Roosevelt felt we needed a second bill of rights. When he died, Truman helped bury the second bill of rights.

Unless you accept human rights, you have NOTHING to crow about. It is really that simple. If the subject is silenced by money interests, you cannot begin to protect ANY RIGHTS OF ANY KIND. What we have is a complete vacuum of discussion of the importance of fairness to all human beings. Without that you have Palestinians being murdered by snipers. Without that you have old people doing without medicine so they can continue eating. Without that you have nothing but a feast of the greedy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm not the one missing the point.

Untermensche just admitted that the constitution can be amended. But he seems to think it can be only amended in positive ways and never amended in negative ways. That's the important point.

I have no wish to suppress minorities, I'm trying to prevent that from happening. Unlike untermensche, I don't see "but we have a constitution with a bill of rights" as an iron clad way of preventing that.

 

[arkirk]

I'm not the one missing the point.

Untermensche just admitted that the constitution can be amended. But he seems to think it can be only amended in positive ways and never amended in negative ways. That's the important point.

I have no wish to suppress minorities, I'm trying to prevent that from happening. Unlike untermensche, I don't see "but we have a constitution with a bill of rights" as an iron clad way of preventing that.

Our current constitution has iron clad protections for the rich only. Don't jive me about that document. It has failed to protect the government from executive abuse and lying. It has failed to prosecute banking thieves, war criminals, international cheats, etc. etc. It has allowed men like Dubbiya to lie us into a war then when the lies are uncovered, laugh in our face about it. It has failed to do the right thing for refugees our multinational corporations produce. It has failed in a major way on the human front.

 

[untermensche]

I'm not the one missing the point.

Untermensche just admitted that the constitution can be amended. But he seems to think it can be only amended in positive ways and never amended in negative ways. That's the important point.

I have no wish to suppress minorities, I'm trying to prevent that from happening. Unlike untermensche, I don't see "but we have a constitution with a bill of rights" as an iron clad way of preventing that.

You are using a very bad democracy to make your points.

The US was infected by slavery because of the will of a minority.

And that infection lasted centuries and the effects are still with us in the form of poverty and prison.

It is always an evil minority that is straightened out when popular opinion reaches a tipping point.

And once tipped it does not tip back unless a minority of despots take control and the democracy is damaged.

The right of gays to marry is expanding.

A return to slavery is not on the horizon.

The rights of people to not by killed by the dangerous toys of children is being recognized.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm not the one missing the point.

Untermensche just admitted that the constitution can be amended. But he seems to think it can be only amended in positive ways and never amended in negative ways. That's the important point.

I have no wish to suppress minorities, I'm trying to prevent that from happening. Unlike untermensche, I don't see "but we have a constitution with a bill of rights" as an iron clad way of preventing that.

Our current constitution has iron clad protections for the rich only. Don't jive me about that document. It has failed to protect the government from executive abuse and lying. It has failed to prosecute banking thieves, war criminals, international cheats, etc. etc. It has allowed men like Dubbiya to lie us into a war then when the lies are uncovered, laugh in our face about it. It has failed to do the right thing for refugees our multinational corporations produce. It has failed in a major way on the human front.

There's a lot going on that violates peoples rights that exist under our constitution, so yet it HAS failed. I'm not sure who you think you are arguing against. Just look at the Drug War, NSA spying, the Department of Homeland Security, etc. I think only the 3rd Amendment has had no serious violations.

The rights of people to not by killed by the dangerous toys of children is being recognized.

It has always been illegal to murder people, whether by gun or knife or poison or bare hands. You speak nonsense.

What you are saying is "I don't like that right so it doesn't count." Another case of "No True Scotsman", your favorite fallacy.

Australia shows the rights of the minority of those who aren't deranged hoplophobes are being infringed by the majority who are deranged hoplophobes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fascinating, unter, that not a single thing you wrote refuted a single thing I wrote.

Now let us see if you can actually define the word "capitalism."

You're deluded.

I say I want to expand democracy. Not on a whim but because dictatorship and the concentrated power that arises from it is dangerous and immoral.

And you somehow turn that into me wanting all power.

You want to ensure the people vote for what you want.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When in history did a population vote away the rights of a minority?

All the time.

- - - Updated - - -

They also gave us Jim Crow laws through corrupted governments that were not democratic.

You simply define anything that doesn't vote your way as not democratic.

And a dictator gave us the treatment of Jews in Germany.

Hitler was elected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It has never once happened.

Plenty of examples from the areas of sex & religion.

So there are no indecent exposure laws?

So homosexuality was never illegal?

Prostitution is legal?

Blasphemy is legal? (Some democracies in Europe)

Blue laws don't exist? (I'm thinking specifically of laws prohibiting certain sorts of business on Sunday.)

Assisted suicide is legal?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the right to gay marriage is much more widespread just in my lifetime. Many more gay people have the right to get married. This is a poor example.

The laws about it were created by a democracy and had widespread support.

(And, related, the laws about inter-racial marriage.)

Again, a NEW right. Not the taking of a right already established.

There didn't used to be any drug laws.

Something simple like city uilding codes mandating certain designs and colors imposes the will of a majority against a minority who may wish to do something eccentric with their homes.

This is a joke. A person has the right to move. They should know what they are getting into when they buy.

In other words, a case of the majority taking away the rights of a minority that you agree with.

The building codes aren't about doing something eccentric, they are about changing the style.

Jim crow laws in the south were certainly supported by the majority in those states.

This is because they were established law when the people that supported them were born. It was the world they knew.

But once the rights were given it is only a minority that has tried to take them away again.

Jim Crow was not established law when it was passed.

Religious minorities have been persecuted in democracies and have had their rights stripped many times. Germany (there was majority support to curtail rights of Jews even before Nazis came to power). Even in the US majorities try to impose restrictions on religious minorities quite frequently (Christians giving themselves special privileges or taking away rights of non christians) , and we have to get the courts involved to protect the minorities. FFRF's main mission is to protect religious minorities from Christians using the protections from the 1st amendment.

How majorities behave under insane dictatorships that have no parallel in history are not examples of how people behave in a free democracy.

The Nazi's used a bit of propaganda to gain support.

In a democracy their propaganda could have been questioned.

You didn't address the point at all.

Pornography used to be far more restrictions than it does now because the majority wanted it that way.

This is moving to expand rights.

The original laws were about taking away rights.

I could go on, and on, and on.

You could start.

Your blindness doesn't mean we haven't given you a lot of examples.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is an atheist board. Not only would this board not be supported in several societies, they would be asking for us to be beheaded.

Bad example, AFIAK none of those places are democracies.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is an atheist board. Not only would this board not be supported in several societies, they would be asking for us to be beheaded.

Bad example, AFIAK none of those places are democracies.

Not officially, but if the people were allowed to vote in some of those countries they would feel that.

 

[arkirk]

The laws about it were created by a democracy and had widespread support.

(And, related, the laws about inter-racial marriage.)



There didn't used to be any drug laws.

Something simple like city uilding codes mandating certain designs and colors imposes the will of a majority against a minority who may wish to do something eccentric with their homes.

This is a joke. A person has the right to move. They should know what they are getting into when they buy.

In other words, a case of the majority taking away the rights of a minority that you agree with.

The building codes aren't about doing something eccentric, they are about changing the style.

Jim crow laws in the south were certainly supported by the majority in those states.

This is because they were established law when the people that supported them were born. It was the world they knew.

But once the rights were given it is only a minority that has tried to take them away again.

Jim Crow was not established law when it was passed.

Religious minorities have been persecuted in democracies and have had their rights stripped many times. Germany (there was majority support to curtail rights of Jews even before Nazis came to power). Even in the US majorities try to impose restrictions on religious minorities quite frequently (Christians giving themselves special privileges or taking away rights of non christians) , and we have to get the courts involved to protect the minorities. FFRF's main mission is to protect religious minorities from Christians using the protections from the 1st amendment.

How majorities behave under insane dictatorships that have no parallel in history are not examples of how people behave in a free democracy.

The Nazi's used a bit of propaganda to gain support.

In a democracy their propaganda could have been questioned.

You didn't address the point at all.

Pornography used to be far more restrictions than it does now because the majority wanted it that way.

This is moving to expand rights.

The original laws were about taking away rights.

I could go on, and on, and on.

You could start.

Your blindness doesn't mean we haven't given you a lot of examples.

This thread is titled "Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail." We so far have 44 pages of argument about democracy, not Socialism. Socialism is actually about sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. However we accomplish this has been the problem. When we fail to establish communitarian rules of behavior, then democracy fails...and can do so rapidly....witness Nazi Germany. It is more a matter of having contempt for humanistic values that makes societies fail more than the form of government. Civilized behavior needs to be stabilized by a humanistic constitution that prohibits the erosion of human rights to dictatorships, dictatorships of the proletariat, and mass hysteric democracy. Mass hysteric democracy is that which has been gamed by propaganda to destroy human rights.

Human rights require a guarantee by government that they WILL BE RESPECTED. We cannot think of them as some sort of privilege that comes and goes with the whim of either a dictator or the public. In short, we need to keep them as sacred to our society, whether or not we have any gods. We need to regard HUMAN RIGHTS as inviolable, not merely something we can grant today and deny tomorrow. What is the weakness of the U.S. constitution is that it was written by men who wanted to free themselves from the tyranny of a king but retain their own tyrannical powers over slaves and lesser citizens. The U.S. Constitution failed, not "socialism." Progressive politics are aimed at shoring up this failed document and making it suitable for governing our large population in a fair and equitable manner. On that score, it is not just "populist." It must be humanist. We have matured as a society without growing up.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To be fair, there was discussion of socialism before there was discussion of democracy, so it wasn't 44 pages.

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production, not sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. It really is just about collective ownership of the means of production.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This thread is titled "Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail." We so far have 44 pages of argument about democracy, not Socialism. Socialism is actually about sharing resources and rights in an equitable civilized manner. However we accomplish this has been the problem. When we fail to establish communitarian rules of behavior, then democracy fails...and can do so rapidly....witness Nazi Germany. It is more a matter of having contempt for humanistic values that makes societies fail more than the form of government. Civilized behavior needs to be stabilized by a humanistic constitution that prohibits the erosion of human rights to dictatorships, dictatorships of the proletariat, and mass hysteric democracy. Mass hysteric democracy is that which has been gamed by propaganda to destroy human rights.

So you have no rebuttal to the examples presented.

Human rights require a guarantee by government that they WILL BE RESPECTED. We cannot think of them as some sort of privilege that comes and goes with the whim of either a dictator or the public. In short, we need to keep them as sacred to our society, whether or not we have any gods. We need to regard HUMAN RIGHTS as inviolable, not merely something we can grant today and deny tomorrow. What is the weakness of the U.S. constitution is that it was written by men who wanted to free themselves from the tyranny of a king but retain their own tyrannical powers over slaves and lesser citizens. The U.S. Constitution failed, not "socialism." Progressive politics are aimed at shoring up this failed document and making it suitable for governing our large population in a fair and equitable manner. On that score, it is not just "populist." It must be humanist. We have matured as a society without growing up.

The problem is that what is a violation is decided by humans. The protections of the courts are only as good as the judges deciding them.

 

[arkirk]

It has never once happened.

Plenty of examples from the areas of sex & religion.

So there are no indecent exposure laws?

So homosexuality was never illegal?

Prostitution is legal?

Blasphemy is legal? (Some democracies in Europe)

Blue laws don't exist? (I'm thinking specifically of laws prohibiting certain sorts of business on Sunday.)

Assisted suicide is legal?

Every example you have cited has a religion connection...a tribal connection...a kind of blind uninformed ignorance characteristic of religion.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It has never once happened.

Plenty of examples from the areas of sex & religion.

So there are no indecent exposure laws?

So homosexuality was never illegal?

Prostitution is legal?

Blasphemy is legal? (Some democracies in Europe)

Blue laws don't exist? (I'm thinking specifically of laws prohibiting certain sorts of business on Sunday.)

Assisted suicide is legal?

Every example you have cited has a religion connection...a tribal connection...a kind of blind uninformed ignorance characteristic of religion.

That doesn't stop it from being the majority passing a law that diminishes peoples rights. So they did it for religious reasons, they still did it.

 

[laughing dog]

Every form of communal organization (which includes gov't) has the potential to diminish the rights of the "minority". So, I don't see what the issue here is.

 

[arkirk]

Every form of communal organization (which includes gov't) has the potential to diminish the rights of the "minority". So, I don't see what the issue here is.

It is worse than that, my friend. If you look at religions you need to understand the basis of why they are called "religions." The word has a Latin root that means to bind. In theory, the religious are "bound by their faith." Does that perhaps offer a clue how to get around all this fear of loss of freedom people seem to have when they hear the world "socialism." Propaganda against "socialism" is just like the title of this thread, full of warning and repetition of the old religious saws, completely meaningless, because at this late date in the history of mankind, all forms of governance and commerce are failing in concert with our environment. All life dies, so is that too "doomed to failure?"

We can find accommodations for each other if we work at it and quit badmouthing everything we do not agree with. The real imperative in seeking governance is to not hasten the demise of our species. So far, we have not been good as listening to our environment, at taking the signals it sends through our societies like shock treatments....depressions, pollutions, wars, inquisitions, death marches, etc. etc. Regardless of what you want to crow about, nature does not have a special place for creatures who have such a short lifespan and such short memories. At first the human being got an advantage over the animals because it could remember and anticipate, but in time it got tweaked with overweening fears and demands for a perfectionism that would grant eternal life. This has skewed the direction of our efforts from logical cooperation to a weird form of commercial cannibalism....CAPITALISM.