coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
yep. The question is how much protection it has and does it need to squash minority or majority descent because right now full socialism here would have to squash majority belief.
-
Features
Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail
- Thread starter Trausti
- Start date
yep. The question is how much protection it has and does it need to squash minority or majority descent because right now full socialism here would have to squash majority belief.
arkirk
Veteran Member
Describe the conditions you would call "full socialism." Socialism is not sufficiently defined at this time to determine the degree to which it exists. We know we have to get along with each other. In Israel for example, the average Ashkenazi believes that Sudanese Jews are a "cancer" on Israeli society...and the same for Arabs in general. As a result, life for these fractions of Israeli society is a living hell with forced birth control and imprisonment awaiting deportation for many many blacks.
The case can be made that a majority of white Israelis are racist and not above committing atrocities on people who even share their religion with them. It is a "belief" not something that deserves codification into laws that hurt people. But you are right, the minority would have to quash the beliefs of the majority for anything like fairness to exist. Are you calling fairness "full socialism?"
coloradoatheist
Veteran Member
Full socialism being the elimination of private property whether owned by government or the community in general.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,128
- Location
- Cascadia
- Basic Beliefs
- Militant Agnostic...aka functional Atheist
It took only the first page of this thread to remind myself why I so rarely read this part of the forum.
Yeah, I know. The amount of bloviating without adequate common definitions is appalling.
arkirk
Veteran Member
It took only the first page of this thread to remind myself why I so rarely read this part of the forum.
Yeah, I know. The amount of bloviating without adequate common definitions is appalling.
Show us how you would deal with the issue without all the "bloviating." While the topic is being handled in a way I would call poorly, I feel the topic deserves discussion....how to make some accommodation to reality and perhaps civil peace. The notion that huge swaths of the human race are not worthy of our consideration has given us wars, gas chambers, starvation, etc. etc. So many posters here feel that policy is like shopping...whatever grabs your fancy, when many of our world problems require real answers, real cooperation, etc. The guy that keeps yelling ..."It's all my stuff!" feels extremely threatened his little kingdom might have to be shared with the rest of the world, but that is a FACT. The world's ecosystems cannot tolerate continued greedy exploitation they are experiencing today and almost NOBODY is defending them. Many people do not have the luxury of just being comfortable enough to think straight. Think on this a bit before flying at all of us who do care with language that injures feelings and hampers participation.
Tammuz
Senior Member
1. You guys don't agree about definitions. Some of you equate socialism with North Korea, some of you with pretty much the entire Western world except the US. A bit of a hyperbole, but more true than not.
2. You seem to think that the other side is either selfish or stupid. That they genuinely think that their view is better for society, and might have good, well-formulated reasons to think so, does not seem to be on the map.
2. You seem to think that the other side is either selfish or stupid. That they genuinely think that their view is better for society, and might have good, well-formulated reasons to think so, does not seem to be on the map.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
The first point I most certainly I agree with. No comment on the second point.
That's not a rebuttal. It's simply a case of the religious majority imposing their will on the minority by democratic means.
untermensche
Contributor
Yes Gomer he was.
And then he ended elections.
His actions were the actions of a dictator who first used democracy to gain power.
THAT is an ever present danger even with democracy.
Some tyrant can still take power illegitimately after having gained power democratically.
That is the danger of the tyrant.
A much bigger danger if we look at history than democratic consent.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
The op was a problem before any of the responses.
untermensche
Contributor
You seem to think a minority of scum can infect a society with slavery for hundreds of years and there will be no residue.
It is religious fundamentalists making laws against gay marriage.
The solution to that is education.
Jim Crow grew from a society that had been polluted and infected with slavery for centuries. And that infection was not by democratic desire. It was the work of a despicable minority.
No. A case of a tiny minority of people agreeing to terms for mutual cohabitation.
The horror.
arkirk
Veteran Member
Loren: Everything on your laundry list had a religious connection...or a tribal connection...a kind of blind uninformed ignorance characteristic of religion. The penal nature of those blue laws clearly was irrational. If you think that was a remark without meaning, then you have a huge blind spot in your conscience. When irrationality is imposed on people whether it be the whim of a dictator or a mob, it exerts an extreme stress on the individual who does not accept the blue bullshit. He lives in a world where he can pay huge consequences for not buying the bullshit blue prohibitions. I regard this as a very small part of the issue we are discussing here. We are discussing whether communities can protect themselves with laws and government. If they can, then you have the armature upon which a credible and beneficial social system can be constructed. It requires from the start that we acknowledge the reality of our problems and reject non problems being worthy of law making. Blue laws are unnecessary for the maintenance of a fair society. That is the only kind of thing you harp on over and over again and claim that somehow socialism would only result in a bunch of blue laws. That is because you have failed to recognize the problems we face with such things as income inequality. The very rich spend lots of their money keeping us in the dark about the problem they present to our society. And you are one of their little helpers with your sarcasm. You may not exactly be stupid, but do not expect me to be stupid and stupified by your attempted discrediting of my statement of the problem.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Calling it tribalism or irrational or religious does not refute the central point of the majority imposing an oppression on the minority.
untermensche
Contributor
Delusions.
The US does not have a functioning democracy.
That is the whole problem.
That is how a minority of religious bigots can get their stupidity into law.
But slowly the majority works it out and the crap that minorities create is replaced.
The problem is always some crazed minority.
Majority opinion is what straightens that out.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
untermensche
Contributor
There are plenty of true Scottsmen.
The move away from slavery.
The granting of the right to vote to women.
The Civil Rights Bill of 1964.
A lot of good democratic activity.
But the work of evil minded minority factions must continually be overcome through the work of the majority.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
There are plenty of true Scottsmen.
The move away from slavery.
The granting of the right to vote to women.
The Civil Rights Bill of 1964.
A lot of good democratic activity.
But the work of evil minded minority factions must continually be overcome through the work of the majority.
Any move you like is a True Scotsman, and any move you don't like is not a True Scotsman. Don't you realize that is the very definition of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
untermensche
Contributor
You make absurd claims like slavery existed because of the will of the majority.
Every evil act carried out my a minority you claim is the work of a majority.
Every evil act carried out my a minority you claim is the work of a majority.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
I claim that evil acts by the minority are the work of the minority, and evil acts by the majority are the work of the majority.
You claim that evil acts by the minority are the work of the minority, and evil acts by the majority are the work of the minority.
Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Do you know why "No True Scotsman" is called a fallacy?
You claim that evil acts by the minority are the work of the minority, and evil acts by the majority are the work of the minority.
Classic "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Do you know why "No True Scotsman" is called a fallacy?