The Religion of "The State"

[untermensche]

If you support things like the invasion of Iraq and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan then you are caught up in the religion of "The State".

Wait, weren't Iraq and Afghanistan already nations?...

Maybe you could take this thought one step further and consider what was done to these nations.

Or perhaps you are lost in a delusion (a religious delusion) that what was done was in any way justified.

 

[untermensche]

.... snip .....

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

By adopting that political philosophy that you detest... Libertarianism.

If you want the people to dictate to the government and the government only do what the people tell it to and no more then this is what you are advocating even though you hate the word.

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's only as elitist as the voters demand it to be. They select people to represent their interests because they have actual lives and can't take the time to fully investigate and educate themselves about the complex intricacies of each and every issue which comes before the government, so they elect someone to do that for them. That's no more an indicator of an elitist system than having car mechanics is elitist because people are too busy to learn how to rebuild their own engines.

What you are talking about is the difference between top-down systems and bottom-up.

Democracy is supposed to be bottom-up. The will of the people is supposed to be expressed in their representatives.

What we have is a top-down system controlled by wealth.

It is a phony democracy. It has a few trappings, elections and such, but that is all.

That's not the argument you were making, though. You were saying that having candidates tell the voters what they will do is undemocratic. I'm saying that it's the essence of democracy.

If you don't want to defend your statement, then fine, but don't just start up on another topic in your response to make it seem like the discussion was about a different matter.

 

[skepticalbip]

By adopting that political philosophy that you detest... Libertarianism.

If you want the people to dictate to the government and the government only do what the people tell it to and no more then this is what you are advocating even though you hate the word.

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

Sorry but socialist systems have been tried and lead to (require) what you continually rail against - top down dictatorial control... ETA: unless you are talking about a small group where everyone knows everyone.

 

[untermensche]

What you are talking about is the difference between top-down systems and bottom-up.

Democracy is supposed to be bottom-up. The will of the people is supposed to be expressed in their representatives.

What we have is a top-down system controlled by wealth.

It is a phony democracy. It has a few trappings, elections and such, but that is all.

That's not the argument you were making, though. You were saying that having candidates tell the voters what they will do is undemocratic. I'm saying that it's the essence of democracy.

If you don't want to defend your statement, then fine, but don't just start up on another topic in your response to make it seem like the discussion was about a different matter.

There really is no "essence" of democracy. There is only the way some think it should work.

Some are happy with representatives who represent the people with money who gave them some with the promise for more.

While other say that representatives should represent the people who voted for them. They should take their orders from the people not tell the people what they are going to do.

And of course we know that these so-called representatives who tell people what they are going to do rarely do what they said they would. It really is a big charade controlled by big money, not democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

Sorry but socialist systems have been tried and lead to (require) what you continually rail against - top down dictatorial control.

How does "democratic" become "socialist", whatever that is, short of a brain infarction?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not the argument you were making, though. You were saying that having candidates tell the voters what they will do is undemocratic. I'm saying that it's the essence of democracy.

If you don't want to defend your statement, then fine, but don't just start up on another topic in your response to make it seem like the discussion was about a different matter.

There really is no "essence" of democracy. There is only the way some think it should work.

Some are happy with representatives who represent the people with money who gave them some with the promise for more.

While other say that representatives should represent the people who voted for them. They should take their orders from the people not tell the people what they are going to do.

And of course we know that these so-called representatives who tell people what they are going to do rarely do what they said they would. It really is a big charade controlled by big money, not democracy.

Why do you quote my posts when you discuss a topic like that? Do you have another browser open on a different forum or something and you're typing into the wrong one?

 

[arkirk]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

I think that the best way would be to have faith that the government will come up with a solution for us.

We are on the express elevator and the control is stuck in the down mode. There are no real guarantees from politicians, but Sanders has been consistent for many years that he at least has the will to try to ameliorate some of our biggest problems. I am hoping for some coattails in the Congress to help him along the way. You may be surprised as how painless honest government can be. We have to START somewhere. Now is as good as anytime. It really is not a matter of faith. It is more a matter of giving different guiding principles (no longer greed and arrogance) a little working room. Like all experiments it will have ups and downs, but they will at least not be so fucking mean spirited as they have been.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

Sorry but socialist systems have been tried and lead to (require) what you continually rail against - top down dictatorial control.

How does "democratic" become "socialist", whatever that is, short of a brain infarction?

"Democratic" becomes "socialist" when used to mean a governmental system where the government assures that individuals are not allowed to amass capital and sees to a "fair distribution" of resources and wealth.

 

[untermensche]

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

Sorry but socialist systems have been tried and lead to (require) what you continually rail against - top down dictatorial control.

How does "democratic" become "socialist", whatever that is, short of a brain infarction?

"Democratic" becomes "socialist" when used to mean a governmental system where the government assures that individuals are not allowed to amass capital and sees to a "fair distribution" of resources and wealth.

Is the purpose of society to allow individuals to amass as much capital as they want?

 

[untermensche]

There really is no "essence" of democracy. There is only the way some think it should work.

Some are happy with representatives who represent the people with money who gave them some with the promise for more.

While other say that representatives should represent the people who voted for them. They should take their orders from the people not tell the people what they are going to do.

And of course we know that these so-called representatives who tell people what they are going to do rarely do what they said they would. It really is a big charade controlled by big money, not democracy.

Why do you quote my posts when you discuss a topic like that? Do you have another browser open on a different forum or something and you're typing into the wrong one?

If you have nothing to say why say anything?

Democracy, if it is an expression of the will of the people must be bottom-up democracy, not top-down.

Top-down democracy is just a way to pretend to have democracy while the rich control everything.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is capital "L" Libertarianism with it's worship of the religion of capitalism.

And there is small "l" libertarianism which I do support which wants to destroy illegitimate top-down systems of power, like most of the power systems within capitalism and replace them with democratic power systems.

Sorry but socialist systems have been tried and lead to (require) what you continually rail against - top down dictatorial control.

How does "democratic" become "socialist", whatever that is, short of a brain infarction?

"Democratic" becomes "socialist" when used to mean a governmental system where the government assures that individuals are not allowed to amass capital and sees to a "fair distribution" of resources and wealth.

Is the purpose of society to allow individuals to amass as much capital as they want?

Society doesn't have purpose. Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

 

[untermensche]

Society doesn't have purpose....

That's where we differ.

You have society, and it is a trade off, because you want things, like security and clean water and good schools, and the list goes on.

And what is a concern in society is people exploiting others be it with economic power or other means.

And wealth is a problem if it is used as a tool to exploit.

 

[skepticalbip]

Society doesn't have purpose....

That's where we differ.

You have society, and it is a trade off, because you want things, like security and clean water and good schools, and the list goes on.

And what is a concern in society is people exploiting others be it with economic power or other means.

And wealth is a problem if it is used as a tool to exploit.

Nice and meaningless sermon but you didn't comment on the post...

Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

 

[untermensche]

That's where we differ.

You have society, and it is a trade off, because you want things, like security and clean water and good schools, and the list goes on.

And what is a concern in society is people exploiting others be it with economic power or other means.

And wealth is a problem if it is used as a tool to exploit.

Nice and meaningless sermon but you didn't comment on the post...

Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

You are the one giving sermons.

Again, wealth is not inherently good. It can be used to exploit and society exists to prevent exploitation, not to look the other way.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wait, weren't Iraq and Afghanistan already nations?...

Maybe you could take this thought one step further and consider what was done to these nations.

Or perhaps you are lost in a delusion (a religious delusion) that what was done was in any way justified.

Trump - "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".
Cruz - "Carpet Bomb"

Of course under Obama, we have been inflicting massive numbers of airstrikes on ISIL.

 

[untermensche]

Maybe you could take this thought one step further and consider what was done to these nations.

Or perhaps you are lost in a delusion (a religious delusion) that what was done was in any way justified.

Trump - "Bomb the shit out of ISIS".
Cruz - "Carpet Bomb"

Of course under Obama, we have been inflicting massive numbers of airstrikes on ISIL.

Under Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, we have had continual violence, non-stop violence and not a day without plans for more.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nice and meaningless sermon but you didn't comment on the post...

Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

You are the one giving sermons.

Again, wealth is not inherently good. It can be used to exploit and society exists to prevent exploitation, not to look the other way.

Who the hell said wealth was inherently good? Where did this value judgement come from?

The point you are evading is that for a government to assure there is no disparity of wealth will necessarily have to be one hell of an intrusive and controlling government... the kind of government you continually rail against.

I guess what you really want is divine intervention to change human nature so that humans no longer want more than they have.

 

[untermensche]

Nice and meaningless sermon but you didn't comment on the post...

Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

You are the one giving sermons.

Again, wealth is not inherently good. It can be used to exploit and society exists to prevent exploitation, not to look the other way.

Who the hell said wealth was inherently good? Where did this value judgement come from?

The point you are evading is that for a government to assure there is no disparity of wealth will necessarily have to be one hell of an intrusive and controlling government... the kind of government you continually rail against.

I guess what you really want is divine intervention to change human nature so that humans no longer want more than they have.

You only have a Strawman.

The governments role is to limit harm, not to try to make all people equal.

But in terms of taxation, morality dictates that those harmed the least, who will still have a lot even after taxation, should carry the greatest burden.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The question is: How do we overcome this religion and move past it?

I think that the best way would be to have faith that the government will come up with a solution for us.

The problem is when it comes to US policy in the Middle East, the solution has turned out to be the problem.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's where we differ.

You have society, and it is a trade off, because you want things, like security and clean water and good schools, and the list goes on.

And what is a concern in society is people exploiting others be it with economic power or other means.

And wealth is a problem if it is used as a tool to exploit.

Nice and meaningless sermon but you didn't comment on the post...

Governments can have purposes and can dictate the kind of society we have. Individuals massing wealth is a natural result of having a government that does not control and limit individuals. If you want a government that doesn't have power to limit individual freedom than you will have disparities in wealth. If you want a government that assures there is no disparity in wealth then you have to have one hell of an intrusive and controlling government.

It depends on how payment is made. Productive workers who are rewarded in terms of good salaries create wealth to others by spending in the community. This alone increases the countries wealth. There is no harm in someone amassing billions but there is a problem if all those who make him rich live in poverty to maximise his profits. In reality this does not always work. When labour is cheap then you can hire more to try and combat inefficiencies in the more skilled industries.