• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Failed Socialist State

Republic Now! said:
You don't think the "drive to be rich" is premised in some deeper human characteristic?
Click to expand...

No, it's learnt.

What ways do rich people help in vague ways and what would be more specific ways?
Click to expand...

Read it again, that's not what I said.

How does capitalism reinforce any mindset beyond right to property?
Click to expand...

By making wealth the desired end in life.

Interesting; Marx said "capitalism" was what made communism inevitable, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Communism is a response to the inequalities in capitalism, it's not contradictory.
Really? Nothing wrong with altruism in and of itself that would make you opposed to it? Just the infeasibility of brainwashing the masses to accept the ridiculous moral philosophy that is altruism?
Click to expand...

How is altruism ridiculous? The fact that people have children proves it works. Just have to extend it beyond loved ones.
 
spud_meister said:
Yes, I'm a firm believer that might=right. Rights are endowed by the most powerful person, or group of persons. All yours were endowed because there was a group of people powerful enough to overthrow the British.
Click to expand...

I get it; you're an anarchist.
 
Republic Now! said:
I can't, explain to me why anyone would think altruism is a viable moral philosophy or why a society should even be based upon it.
Click to expand...

they believe that man can be made to live in harmony with each other and nature.

they believe in the-----> unconstrained man.

so i know what their thinking, but i don't accept it as real.
 
spud_meister said:
Yeah, but you're American, the only inalienable rights you have are life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. You don't have a right to die.
Click to expand...

Nah, rights are not determined by poetic license. The only truly inalienable right that anyone has is the right to die.
 
spud_meister said:
No, it's learnt.
Click to expand...

What context is used to facilitate this learning? Is it really such a simple matter to say "You want to be rich" and thus people want to be rich? In this case, wouldn't it be easy to say "you want this ridiculous altruistic state" and thus you have it? Why do you need a benevolant dictator if this is a learned? Simply stop teaching it.



Read it again, that's not what I said.
Click to expand...

You said people would rather become rich then help people in vague ways instead of just help them in specific ways. How do rich people help people in vague ways and what would be more specific ways?

By making wealth the desired end in life.
Click to expand...

That's a personal choice.

Communism is a response to the inequalities in capitalism, it's not contradictory.
Click to expand...

It is contradictory to what you said, which was that communism is impossible because capitalism makes us selfish.

How is altruism ridiculous? The fact that people have children proves it works. Just have to extend it beyond loved ones.
Click to expand...

Occasional sacrifice is good, but basing an entire moral philosophy on the premise that one should maximize the happiness of others is self destructive. If everyone gives and no one takes, then what's the point?
 
ernst barkmann said:
they believe that man can be made to live in harmony with each other and nature.

they believe in the-----> unconstrained man.

so i know what their thinking, but i don't accept it as real.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with altruism?

That's classic liberal philosophy you just outlined. What do you think libertarian philosophy entails?
 
spud_meister said:
No, because the state has the most might. :lol:
Click to expand...

Right, so you're an anarchist because you believe there is no such thing as moral justification for authority (though you MAY believe it is a necessary evil) and authority is only validated by a long chain of violence and conflict where the winners decided what right and wrong is. That's the textbook definition of anarchist philosophy.
 
Oh boy.

Wrong on so many levels but hey. I'll just tackle the important stuff. Yes... democracy exists only where there is a democratic form of government. A democratic form of government can be anything from direct democracy to constitutional monarchy. In between that you have the representative republic.

[democracy].........................................[constitutional republic]

banks-------------------------------------------------------god
majority-----------------------------------------------individual
government-----------------------------------------constitution
public servants------------------------------------government
case & statute law------------------------------public servants
corporations----------------------------------------statue law
individual-------------------------------------------corporations

I am not even going to bother saying why this is ****.

Moving on.

Democracy is not antithetic to republic. Democracy is a concept. Republic is a set of rules by which a country is governed by.

Basically a republic demands (in order to be called that) that the power of rulership shall be divided into 3 equal branches -> legislative, executive and judicial. Why? Because the alternatives are monarchy for instance and depending on the monarchy you can have the monarch be the leader of all 3 branches and thus, be a dictator. A republic also states that the head of state will not be a monarch but will be a man elected by the people. A man voted in office. These 2 things, elected head of state; and separation of powers; are the core 2 tennents of a republic.

So I have no idea what this is about

"In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money."

Moving on.

A representative republics adds to that the notion that the people need to be represented in the legislative process too.

Now. What did I tell you that the principles of democracy are? Power to the people. The best way to do this is through voting. Voting is a democratic process. Do you vote in the USA? Yes, you do. Congrats, you are a democracy because you, the people, are powerful because you can vote for stuff.

The difference between direct democracy which is a FORM of GOVERNMENT, and not just a philosophy, because it is a way to implement philosophy of democracy in real life, says that whatever the people vote on, that's final no matter what the majority is. Basically, if you have 50%+1, whatever the issue voted on is, whether referendum of political party, that party or issue that received 50%+1 wins and trumps everybody else without the rest having a say.

To exemplify, the electoral college is direct democracy. That tyrannical thing you hate. Why? Because if you get 50%+1 you TRUMP everybody that is in the 50%-1. They don't matter. They've been defeated by a small majority.
The house of representatives is in fact the only part that responds to the representative part in representative republic. Because the people represent their constituents and it is made in such a manner that everybody should get represented on their issues. That's the theory.

Now. The senate, you are correct. That is why it was created, to represent the states, and the house of representatives to represent the people.
 
Republic Now! said:
What does that have to do with altruism?

That's classic liberal philosophy you just outlined. What do you think libertarian philosophy entails?
Click to expand...


well, i said i knew what they thinking, of where their going. altruism of Ayn rand makes us slaves of everyone, via the avenue of democracy.

and liberals USE democracy to achieve their goals, look that the socialist on these boards calling for .........more democracy.

libertarians, are not all the same, .....but the main stay is freedom, small government, rule of law which constrains man.
 
Tucker Case said:
Except in any way that actually resembles the textbook definition of anarchist philosophy.
Click to expand...

The belief that the only thing that even remotely affirms governments (or any, really) authority is force. That's not THE anarchist principle?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well, i said i knew what they thinking, of where their going. altruism of Ayn rand makes us slaves of everyone, via the avenue of democracy.

and liberals USE democracy to achieve their goals, look that the socialist on these boards calling for .........more democracy.

libertarians, are not all the same, .....but the main stay is freedom, small government, rule of law which constrains man.
Click to expand...

You are seriously misinformed on what democracy is. I tried to explain it to you more academically... but I give up. Your crusade against democracy is folly.

Even wiki: Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions.

-------

I have tried to explain to you the differences between what is a republic and what is democracy and how they both work together. One addresses certain issues, the other addresses other issues. They are compatible and in all the free world, they live side by side.
 
Republic Now! said:
The belief that the only thing that even remotely affirms governments (or any, really) authority is force. That's not THE anarchist principle?
Click to expand...

Not at all. THE anarchist principle is that governments are undesirable, unnecessary, and/or harmful (although, as you said, many consider them a necessary evil).

Spud's promoting fascism, which is basically the exact opposite of anarchism.
 
Donahue said:
Because they're failed states.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what you are looking for? failed socialist states?

You do understand that nowadays, there are only 4 socialist and or communist states in the world remaining.

1. Republic of Laos.
2. China.
3. Cuba
4. N. Korea.

Those that failed were everything that the USSR had influenced. Outside the eastern block you had the asian communist countries like afghanistan and in africa you had a few countries, the most important one being ethiopia.

So.. I don't understand what more evidence you need? I mean, what is the point?
 
Rainman05 said:
Oh boy.

Wrong on so many levels but hey. I'll just tackle the important stuff. Yes... democracy exists only where there is a democratic form of government. A democratic form of government can be anything from direct democracy to constitutional monarchy. In between that you have the representative republic.

[democracy].........................................[constitutional republic]

banks-------------------------------------------------------god
majority-----------------------------------------------individual
government-----------------------------------------constitution
public servants------------------------------------government
case & statute law------------------------------public servants
corporations----------------------------------------statue law
individual-------------------------------------------corporations

I am not even going to bother saying why this is ****.

Moving on.

Democracy is not antithetic to republic. Democracy is a concept. Republic is a set of rules by which a country is governed by.

Basically a republic demands (in order to be called that) that the power of rulership shall be divided into 3 equal branches -> legislative, executive and judicial. Why? Because the alternatives are monarchy for instance and depending on the monarchy you can have the monarch be the leader of all 3 branches and thus, be a dictator. A republic also states that the head of state will not be a monarch but will be a man elected by the people. A man voted in office. These 2 things, elected head of state; and separation of powers; are the core 2 tennents of a republic.

So I have no idea what this is about



Moving on.

A representative republics adds to that the notion that the people need to be represented in the legislative process too.

Now. What did I tell you that the principles of democracy are? Power to the people. The best way to do this is through voting. Voting is a democratic process. Do you vote in the USA? Yes, you do. Congrats, you are a democracy because you, the people, are powerful because you can vote for stuff.

The difference between direct democracy which is a FORM of GOVERNMENT, and not just a philosophy, because it is a way to implement philosophy of democracy in real life, says that whatever the people vote on, that's final no matter what the majority is. Basically, if you have 50%+1, whatever the issue voted on is, whether referendum of political party, that party or issue that received 50%+1 wins and trumps everybody else without the rest having a say.

To exemplify, the electoral college is direct democracy. That tyrannical thing you hate. Why? Because if you get 50%+1 you TRUMP everybody that is in the 50%-1. They don't matter. They've been defeated by a small majority.
The house of representatives is in fact the only part that responds to the representative part in representative republic. Because the people represent their constituents and it is made in such a manner that everybody should get represented on their issues. That's the theory.

Now. The senate, you are correct. That is why it was created, to represent the states, and the house of representatives to represent the people.
Click to expand...






the founders did not create democracy ,they created a constitutional republic, america has moved--------> closer to representative democracy with the removal of the check and balance of government...the 17th amendment to the constitution.

DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.....OURS IS REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT

"In Republican government power is NOT in one set of hands,......its in the hands of the ...people...states, and the electoral college, which presents the union/nation. Since power is not concentrated in one set of hands, (special interest or faction), cannot work as easy to get government to create programs or laws, which they wish to create for THEIR INTEREST,... because the house cannot create programs or laws, which would expand government power and takeaway the VAST powers the states are charged with ( because the senate is controlled by state legislators). [Now on the other end of the spectrum]...........(state legislators) cannot use the senate........to create programs or laws, which deal with money, and make the people PAY for them, because the constitution only gives the house the authority to appropriate money."

THIS ABOVE MEANS POWER IN NOT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE , BUT 3 SETS OF HANDS,............ AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DEMOCRACY!

THE ONLY THREAD<------ OF DEMOCRACY CREATED BY THE FOUNDERS IS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THAT IS ALL.

Alexander Fraser Tytler -- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can ((vote)) itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, *(the majority always --->votes for the CANDIDATE promising the most benefits<--- )* with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."


FEDERALIST 10 JAMES MADISON-- "The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican<----- (than of) ------>democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter"

MADISON IS SAYING YOU WILL HAVE LESS FACTIOUS COMBINATIONS .....UNDER REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT......(THAN OF) DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT ............CLEARLY........HE DRAWS A CONTRAST AND DEFINES THE TWO AS ----->DIFFERENT.
 
ecofarm said:
You're just being intentionally obtuse in order to appear erudite. A constitutional republic is a form of democracy.
Click to expand...

In his defense this topic revolves around being intentionally obtuse to appear erudite.

Squabbling over the differences between constitutional republic and democracy or if there has ever been a socialist county are silly. All of these things are philosophical concepts with little clean cut definition. There is no such thing as a "pure" socialist country because the concept of socialism is only a vague idea itself. We might as well be debating the concepts of "big" and "huge".

I consider the USSR, North Korea, Cuba, Eastern Bloc States, etc. to be acceptable examples of socialism that has failed. I consider much of western Europe to be acceptable examples of countries with heavy socialism influences that is in the process of failing badly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom