- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 8,468
- Reaction score
- 1,575
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
An interesting point made by Robert Nisbet is that this is because of increasing gov't control of functions like charity/welfare. Most associations such as those that used to provide such things require functions that the state has gradually usurped. It moves into an area, weakens those associations that used to provide for such functions and then declares its intervention necessary.I don't agree. In the modern era where so few people concern themselves with volunteer work and dedicating genuine time to their communities, there is often no fall back for people on hard times.
Indeed, in a economy so invested with pro-rich state intervention it is necessary. It would simply fall apart without redistribution, the demand would not be there for our massively demand-push, consumerist economy. In the end Marx, Keynes et al were right about corporate-capitalist crises, they are fundamentally caused by a structural imbalance at the core of the system itself, caused by the state maintained massive inequality. They simply erred, aside from their solutions, in believing that this was mostly a natural part of the "free market"(a rather meaningless term itself.) rather than seeing that capitalism and certainly corporate-capitalism has always been riddled with state intervention.I do believe that there are those on welfare who are not in genuine need, but to say that none are deserving is an extreme. Redistribution of wealth, to some degree, is important for a stable society. This is why the rich fall into a higher tax bracket than the lower classes.
So China was not Maoist or Marxist, and therefore is now not fascist....Your credibility quickly dwindled as soon as you mentioned Marxism. Having some socialized systems does not make a country Marxist. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. All successful economies are mixed in nature, with some command elements and some free market elements.
China is not a fascist country. Its government has thousands of members, and its economy is essentially capitalist now.
So China was not Maoist or Marxist, and therefore is now not fascist....
Yeah, you've got loads of credibility there.....:doh
An interesting point made by Robert Nisbet is that this is because of increasing gov't control of functions like charity/welfare. Most associations such as those that used to provide such things require functions that the state has gradually usurped. It moves into an area, weakens those associations that used to provide for such functions and then declares its intervention necessary.
Secondly, Mao's original plan was to start China down the road to Communism, and then shift it over to Socialism (absence of government) later...
As for fascism... that is your erroneous assertion and not history's. A fascist state is one ruler with one agenda.
You have got these backwards. Communism is the ideal classless and stateless society; Socialism is government control of industry in preparation for a transition to Communism.
[/quote]Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. One can argue whether or not China qualifies as Fascist, but there's certainly more to the matter than totalitarianism, as any of the failed Soviet states can warrant.
so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????The best way to control child bearing without violating personal rights is to ensure that childbearing requires the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents to care for them, NOT use the government to do it.
NOBODY should be mandated to care for other people's children.
ELIMINATE the welfare programs that encourage irresponsible childbearing.
I have greater qualms about punishing the innocent parents wrongly attacked as irresponsible.so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????
well "world needs plenty of Bahtenduhs" :lol:I have greater qualms about punishing the innocent parents wrongly attacked as irresponsible.
I also have greater confidence in the average adult of the species to adequately parent a child--far greater confidence in said average adult than in the average government bureaucracy.
If I have to err, I choose to err on the side of the parent, on the side of parents rights, and on the side of individual liberty to raise children by whatever guidelines one finds appropriate. As long as a child receives an education, is fed properly, is clothed when out in public, and is not constantly bruised, battered, or otherwise explicitly abused (i.e., told he/she is worthless, et cetera), I choose to trust the parent's judgment where the child is concerned.
Yes there were many influences, the industrial revolution, capitalism, corporatism, consumerism, secularism the list could go on but I agree with Robert Nisbet that while these are important it is in the end the state that has been the most important in the destruction of the traditional bases of charity and welfare as it has been in so much of the destruction of traditional, decentralised society. It is to a degree a major support of corporatism itself.I believe this is partially true, but I also believe that corporatism and consumerism are more to blame. People have become essentially dependent upon corporations to provide for their livelihoods: food, shelter, communications, entertainment, etc. Companies have removed this from the community realm and have mass produced it. It's at the point now where most people are so busy working in order to have money to buy things that there is simply no time for them to do anything else.
Actually, unless you are talking in pure Marxist terms(and that is never a good thingYou have got these backwards. Communism is the ideal classless and stateless society; Socialism is government control of industry in preparation for a transition to Communism.
.
so you have no qualms about punishing the innocents born to irresponsible people????
Those parents who are grossly irresponsible, to the point of being unable to legitimately care for their children, ought to lose their children. It's that simple.
Sounds great in principle. Application is only sound if we have a coherent definition and standard of "irresponsible", "grossly irresponsible", and "legitimate care."
Outside of the patently obvious criteria that involve physical danger, injury, and harm, I am not certain such a standard has been defined with clarity.
They haven't, simply because there are so many people, both on the loony liberal side and the religious right, who think breeding up a storm is someone's right that cannot be infringed on in any way. The liberals think we ought to pay for them all, the conservatives think we can't interfere in God's will.
Screw 'em both. If the parents cannot pay for the child's well-being, the parents shouldn't have the children to begin with. That goes above and beyond any "care" issues.
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...
If "prospective' parents had to go thru just half what prospective adopting parents had to go thru, there would be fewer children living in deplorable conditions...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?