Are liberals allies to socialism?

[aociswundumho]

I agree with socialists on a few issues, but I'm not an ally to them. We just share a common enemy.

Yes, the "enemy" is the ideology which gave you a better life than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever existed.

 

[Questerr]

I believe people in power will generally make decisions that benefit themselves. That has nothing to do with political affiliation. The fault I assign to liberals is that I don't believe their politics produce outcomes that align with their stated values.

Which is why the solution is Maximal Democracy. Ensure no one person every has significant power and make elected representatives absolutely beholden to their constituents.

 

[Questerr]

Ok, how would a socialist society deal with greed and self-interest if everyone is self-interested?



Why would an elected aristocrat be any better? If he's self-interested he's just going to tell the voters what they want to hear.

Is that what happens when CEO’s are elected by company boards? Do they only tell the voters what they want to hear? Is every CEO election a popularity contest that ends in failure?

 

[StillBallin75]

I would answer no.

Do I think liberalism is necessarily an ally to fascism either? No. But liberalism in the American context is a lot of this:

and this:

 

[StillBallin75]

Yes, the "enemy" is the ideology which gave you a better life than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever existed.

You mean the same ideology that redistributes the fruits of one's labor to the pigs, leeches, and bloodsuckers, and besides being inherently evil is practically-speaking simply unsustainable.

 

[Questerr]

Yes, the "enemy" is the ideology which gave you a better life than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever existed.

Feudalism and absolute monarchies gave people a better life than they had under classical era slave oligarchies. Did that mean we should have maintained feudalism and absolute monarchies and not considered them an enemy during the Enlightenment?

 

[aociswundumho]

Which is why the solution is Maximal Democracy. Ensure no one person every has significant power and make elected representatives absolutely beholden to their constituents.

They're not beholden to them now. What are you going to do differently to change that?

 

[aociswundumho]

You mean the same ideology that redistributes the fruits of one's labor to the pigs, leeches, and bloodsuckers, and besides being inherently evil is practically-speaking simply unsustainable.

No, that's what government does.

 

[Questerr]

They're not beholden to them now. What are you going to do differently to change that?

A popular veto and instantaneous recall.

Edit: And tight restrictions on campaign finance and lobbying.

 

[vegas giants]

They're not beholden to them now. What are you going to do differently to change that?

They are beholden thru free and fair elections

 

[Questerr]

They are beholden thru free and fair elections

Except they really aren’t under our system. Which is why our elected leaders answer to corporate lobbyists and their campaign financiers, not the people.

 

[vegas giants]

Except they really aren’t under our system. Which is why our elected leaders answer to corporate lobbyists and their campaign financiers, not the people.

Democracy is the worst system in the world....except all the others

 

[aociswundumho]

Feudalism and absolute monarchies gave people a better life than they had under classical era slave oligarchies. Did that mean we should have maintained feudalism and absolute monarchies and not considered them an enemy during the Enlightenment?

None of this address the claim.

You're richer than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever lived because of the goods and services you consume every day. How many of those goods and services are produced by the market? All of them.

 

[vegas giants]

None of this address the claim.

You're richer than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever lived because of the goods and services you consume every day. How many of those goods and services are produced by the market? All of them.

Yep. We got there by a market that also has socialism in it

 

[Questerr]

Democracy is the worst system in the world....except all the others

Democracy is a great system. Churchill was a ****ing aristocrat.

 

[Questerr]

None of this address the claim.

You're richer than 99.9% of all human beings that have ever lived because of the goods and services you consume every day. How many of those goods and services are produced by the market? All of them.

Cool. Keep the market, get rid of the capitalists.

Have the workers own the capital through cooperatives and continue competing and trading in a market system.

I’ve asked you this question before and you refuse to answer it, if a capitalist claims to own a thousand acres of land, or a thousand real estate properties, or a factory that requires a thousand workers to even function, on what is their claim of ownership based?

 

[vegas giants]

Cool. Keep the market, get rid of the capitalists.

Have the workers own the capital through cooperatives and continue competing and trading in a market system.

I'll ask you the same thing I ask him


Can you name a successful country that has done this?

 

[Questerr]

I'll ask you the same thing I ask him


Can you name a successful country that has done this?

Zapatista Chiapas is pretty close. As is the Rojava.

 

[vegas giants]

Zapatista Chiapas is pretty close. As is the Rojava.

So no country on earth?

 

[joluoto]

No they are not. Next!

 

[Questerr]

So no country on earth?

Both of them are on Earth.

 

[aociswundumho]

A popular veto and instantaneous recall.

That would do nothing. 90+ percent of congressvermin are re-elected. Your "instantaneous recall" would not effect them in the least.

Edit: And tight restrictions on campaign finance and lobbying.

1. That's as impossible as eliminating people from having sex. If two people will benefit from trading, they're going to find a way to make it happen.

2. Even if by some miracle you do it, no money in politics means only the rich can afford to run.

3. If you think public financing of campaigns is the answer, all that means is incumbents decide who gets the money, and you can figure out where that leads.

 

[vegas giants]

Both of them are on Earth.

Is either a country? My question was very specific

 

[Questerr]

That would do nothing. 90+ percent of congressvermin are re-elected. Your "instantaneous recall" would not effect them in the least.



1. That's as impossible as eliminating people from having sex. If two people will benefit from trading, they're going to find a way to make it happen.

2. Even if by some miracle you do it, no money in politics means only the rich can afford to run.

3. If you think public financing of campaigns is the answer, all that means is incumbents decide who gets the money, and you can figure out where that leads.

Our elections aren’t even remotely close to free. I don’t know why you are using them as an example.

If someone wants to murder someone, they are going to find a way to murder them. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against murder?

Well, I guess in your system, anyone would be able to murder anyone they wanted so long as they pay the market’s asking price for it.

Or campaigns are subsidized by society and everyone gets the same amount, making personal wealth meaningless and thereby getting money out of politics.

Incumbents would answer to the will of the population. If they tried mucking with the rules, they would be subject to a popular veto and instantaneous recall.

You are also forgetting that Maximal Democracy also means having as many decisions made by direct democratic vote as possible. Changes to the electoral system would definitely fall in that category.

 

[aociswundumho]

Cool. Keep the market, get rid of the capitalists.

Getting rid of the capitalists is an experiment has been done, repeatedly. People like you get into power and murder all of the business owners. The results, shall we say, have not been pretty.

Have the workers own the capital through cooperatives and continue competing and trading in a market system.

How are you going to make that happen? What happens to the tens millions of people who don't want to work in one of your shitty "cooperatives"? I think we all know the answer to that question.

I’ve asked you this question before and you refuse to answer it, if a capitalist claims to own a thousand acres of land, or a thousand real estate properties, or a factory that requires a thousand workers to even function, on what is their claim of ownership based?

Because it's a stupid question. Why not ask if a capitalist owns the entire world, on what is his claim of ownership based?