Quote:

"Socialism is slavery to government regulation. To be pro socialist is to be pro slavery. You can’t have Freedom if you have socialism."

One definition:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

socialism
noun
so·​cial·​ism ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a
: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b
: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

(Continue reading at the link)

If the shoe fits…wear it.

https://www.politico.com/magaz...ca-look-like-219626/

What Would a Socialist America Look Like?
We asked thinkers on the left—and a couple of outliers—to describe their vision for a re-imagined American economy.

By POLITICO MAGAZINE September 03, 2018

https://www.investopedia.com/a...ialist-economies.asp

Capitalist vs. Socialist Economies: What's the Difference?
By POONKULALI THANGAVELU Updated March 12, 2022
Reviewed by MICHAEL J BOYLE
Fact checked by TIMOTHY LI

The Heritage Foundation compiles an annual list of the countries that are most capitalist. That is, they rank highest for promoting economic opportunity, individual empowerment, and prosperity. In 2022, the top ten were:

Singapore
Switzerland
Ireland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Taiwan
Estonia
The Netherlands
Finland
Denmark
1
The United States ranked 25th in the world.
2
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
If the shoe fits…wear it.

You fascist!

I see NZ is on that list along side the scandinavian countries. One of the big reasons our PM has just resigned is that we did not take well to impingement of our capitalist freedoms.In many ways like the scandanavians, we have a socialist welfare system. But not at the cost of individual freedom and self governance. Which is where socialism gos wrong.

And you wonder why the conservative elements are getting a bit upset with how the country is being run?

Of course, how you define things does make a difference for how these ranking happen. Our lack of willingness to experience any financial austerity is a big item... The GOP is every bit as culpable as the democrats, its just what they want to spend on that is different.

It seems that freedoms are a balancing/power act - one freedom infringes on another, and so forth. In society there is no such thing as utter freedom.

For example, we have certain freedoms to pollute and to demand that others can't do anything about it. That, of course impinges on those who want clean water, for example, and the associated freedom to enjoy it and collateral benefits.

I might come back to this Later ME, as I have some thoughts that I may not yet find the right words for, but Ill try.

Society and Govt should be about regulating and finding a solution too issues such as pollution that effect everyone. A broad statement such as freedom to pollute doesn't say very much. Ill use farming as an example though not sure what kind of pollution you mean. So yes farming has side effects. and maybe you'd call that a freedom to pollute, but the world is realising it and farming is improving. What society needs to do is give agriculture time to find solutions and implement them, as farming overall is a positive to the wider society. Just as in the same way cars are a benefit that we all know pollute, but we all need time to implement the solutions.

If you are talking about a private business building a new factory that is disposing of chemical into a river or ground, then no, no new business should be starting on that grounds.

In such matters we need govt to be a mediator and positively push sectors in the right directions, but in a sustainable manor and with knowledge of the sector and how to go about it that works. To me thats governance.

Where I think I get upset with governance is when they delve into 1- social engeneering, Trying to mandate cultural and attitudinal change. Free speech laws for example- reverse racism, gender issues.

2- Overwhelming social welfare policies that start impinging too harshly on those of us who have to pay for them.

3 - Restrictions and unnecessary red tape, or govt control on how individuals run their businesses.

You can have capitalism with heart and care for the community, but what we see here is from the left a desire to hinder or hurt those who do well. Too often the left realises its too hard to bring everyone up, so they resort to bringing the top down, because equality is thier god.

quote:

Too often the left realises its impossible too hard to bring everyone up, so they resort to bringing the top down, because equality is thier god.

True story ^^^

Some of you might find this interesting. Its the leader of our opposition, the National party- what we would call a centre right, business orientated party. He's talking to Ratana Church, a Moari based church and political society. This is one of the big conferences all parties attend each year to talk with our indigenous population.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nation...mmature-conversation

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Too often the left realises its impossible too hard to bring everyone up, so they resort to bringing the top down, because equality is thier god.

True story ^^^

Now that's a friggin interesting way of looking at it.

Are you serious?

"All men are created equal."

How many genders did the Founders mean with the use of the word "men"?

I presume that conservatives buy into the "created equal" thing, but what happens next, in worldly affairs is not God's doing/creation?

So, that's secular? Or is it that Christians deem that it's God ordained for some to be superior and richer, due to certain circumstance, also God ordained? Equality at birth - inequality later?

How can the concept of "equality" be a god, since no deity is present in that, by common definition?

Please clarify all that for me.

Are you asking me? or lane?

I am probably wasting my time on this but I will bite.

Let us look at this SERIOUSLY.

First of all there is no single definition of Socialism.

1. Plato's Communism was a historical political philosophy but nothing like modern Socialism or Communism. Plato's theory included slavery and elite hierarchy. It recommended that weak and sick babies and adults be thrown over the cliff! The sate made the decisions for everyone - ruled by a small elite!

2. Marx, Engles, Lenin etc. professed that Socialism was a historically inevitable evolution of society, as Capitalism failed. This theory failed to account for the desire to hold on to power at all costs - as Stalin and other dictators have done.

3. 3rd World Socialism was a common factor of post WW2 freedom movements in India, Kenya, South America, Indonesia, and many other countries. This brand of socialism was intended to give Government the power to control the "Free market" and the oligarchs. Idealists like Attaturk, Nehru etc. gained a lot of popularity but their successors failed. Back to power grab and corruption.

4. Modern European DEMOCRATIC Socialism is the one that really works - in much of Western Europe. Capitalism thrives but the social agenda is not compromised. The poor and sick are not forsaken. The youth are well educated. A fair minimum wage is paid and healthcare is guaranteed for all. Criminal oligarchy cannot tolerate that environment. This is what Bernie Sanders wants for the US and 330 million Americans (except the other 2 million who want to be the criminal oligarchs)

5. Hitler claimed that the Nazi party was a Socialist party - like Trump's MAGA I guess. enough said

Interesting take on things Naki, tho north west European “socialism” is by no means prefect.

Hard to beat Ghandi’s take on it, society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable, or words to that effect. In that regard the Scandinavians have probably got a better hold on it than anyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Too often the left realises its impossible too hard to bring everyone up, so they resort to bringing the top down, because equality is thier god.

True story ^^^

Now that's a friggin interesting way of looking at it.

Are you serious?

"All men are created equal."

How many genders did the Founders mean with the use of the word "men"?

I presume that conservatives buy into the "created equal" thing, but what happens next, in worldly affairs is not God's doing/creation?

So, that's secular? Or is it that Christians deem that it's God ordained for some to be superior and richer, due to certain circumstance, also God ordained? Equality at birth - inequality later?

How can the concept of "equality" be a god, since no deity is present in that, by common definition?

Please clarify all that for me.

Shanks used the word god uncapitalized changing the meaning of the word to: something worshipped — more like and idol. Go back and reread his post inserting the phrase — “a goal/principle which rules or drives them” — for “god” and I believe you will get his gist.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

OK, I didn't read it that way. I forget sometimes that there may be a distinction between God and god in language.

However, the word "worshiped" in my vocabulary is limited to deity as well.

To really make the distinction I sometimes use the made-up ward of gawd.

As for the rest of your post, let's just say that some value the concept of equality more than others and in different aspects.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
OK, I didn't read it that way. I forget sometimes that there may be a distinction between God and god in language.

However, the word "worshiped" in my vocabulary is limited to deity as well.

To really make the distinction I sometimes use the made-up ward of gawd.

As for the rest of your post, let's just say that some value the concept of equality more than others and in different aspects.

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink!

Shanks post implies: Since you can’t make some drink…limit the water to the rest to make them equal — as the mantra of modern liberalism. I agree with his implication.

Who Is John Galt?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...alt/?sh=21d3ae1b5dae

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN1twVMz404

Especially see - starting at about 1:25 in the video

Here's a longer version of the dystopia most depicting the message of Ayn Rand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K2RSGHCPoM

Here are some views which show the controversy:

Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' has been completely unraveled by the pandemic
Paul Constant Mar 29, 2021, 11:02 AM

https://www.businessinsider.co...tlas-shrugged-2021-3

https://fee.org/articles/biden...t-of-atlas-shrugged/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123146363567166677

'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years

===================================================

Pretty much spot on.

Some say the antithesis of Atlas Shrugged is the Bible.

Another antithesis book, more recently published - Atlas Hugged.

I think maybe that book was written to blow some folk's minds. My review of it almost did that to me.

So, this topic is vastly complex yet in some ways it can be boiled down to worldview.

If one really wants to explore this particular line of thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ11v9xgnhY

It is captioned below the video so you can skip to parts of it, or not.

Here's an audio of the epilogue of the book, which in itself is a bit long and trying, but it does perhaps get to the meat of the differing views.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect Lane has no idea.

Skip to epilogue:

https://davidsloanwilson.world...s-hugged-audio-book/

My earlier reply was brief as I was heading out the door to milk cows.

So yes its true that there are some that you cant lead to water. In Nz now we are almost at that point with record low unemployment as a result of the border lockdowns. Now we have employers screaming for staff. The last percentages of those still on welfare / unemployed, are those who so to speak, wont drink.
But also there are still people on low income who are trying hard but life is tough on minimum wage.
From what I see here over the last 8 years particularly, the left spoke of raising those people up, so we got ideas around restrictions on landlords, Minimum wage increases etc, and the market adjusted and the result was an increase in rents, Inflation across the board, Bussinesses looking overseas for manufacturing or moving thier business off shore etc. And the result of 8 years of the lefts way of doing things is higher child poverty, no real gains on the indicators they wanted, and a heap more debt for the nation as a whole as the govt borrowed massively to fund its policies. So inevitably they start to lay the blame on the "Rich" and talk about taking more from them. Because its all they have left. If they fail at bringing the bottom up, they will reduce the top.

In my post above there is a link to an interview with the author of Atlas Hugged.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but so far I am very impressed (astonished) with this guy.

I find it amazing that some people are so articulate and clear with their thoughts.

You don't even have to agree with him to acknowledge that, although IMO his thoughts are right on.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that before it got buried in some diversion or just buried.

IMO, this represents the depth of the OP premise, and I don't know how deep it goes.

Im slowely getting through your links ME.

this one here kind of closely sums up my feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN1twVMz404

Though because Im not ever completely black and white I do have Buts.

Self determination and personnel responsibility are key components of my belief in how we achieve the best results. So I get angry, for samples sake at health and safety laws that are so restrictive, that they penalise an employer for a workers lack of common sense. So much so that in the last few years the risk too myself and family of letting a farm employee drive a tractor is too high and so My 72 year old father does most of it when my brother and I can not. The end result being that we decided not to have a staff position and do all the work ourselves now. Who does that benefit? Not a potential employee, not the country that would gain the employment tax from that working person. It sounds very much like the moral from this book....... But
......health and safety laws are needed to stop unnecessary deaths and injuries from causes such as employers not supplying appropriate safety equipment. I accept that! Its just that its gone too far and the emphasis now is not on making the job safer, its about making the bureaucrats who enforce the laws, job easier.
So my solution is to have laws that say safety equipment must be provided, but also accept that if an employeee makes a mistake and crashes a tractor for example, that its not necessarily the employers fault. Also recognise that the employee has the ability to decide to do or decline a situation. So if I ask n employee to drive a tractor around a hill, they can take personnel responsibility and tell me, no, thats beyond my ability.

quote:

Im slowely getting through your links ME

Good on you, IMO. It took me a while to develope a theme and it required outside links, IMO, for some credibility.

I know it will be difficult for some to decipher it.

I tried to present both sides of the thought on this. The video you mention is one side, although it is very convincing.

This is one topic that I subscribe to both sides, and thus my thoughts and beliefs are divided.

IOW I'm still developing my views on this.

Quote: "Socialism is slavery to government regulation. To be pro socialist is to be pro slavery. You can’t have Freedom if you have socialism."

IMO, that's way too simplistic, just wrong and isn't the point at all re "freedom".

It's based on a twisted theory, and in part lies.

The answer in some ways it's basically Jeffersonian.

https://www.johnlocke.org/land...-of-perfect-freedom/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocJ2fPk5FGE

In other words, I think practically everything in human history and present is of social construct, including politics and religion and the concept of freedom in societies, except science. The endevor of science is social construct, by necessity, but the facts that science discloses is not social. It's like reality - it is what it is and it's up to us to discover or not. We can obviously choose to be ignorant, to make shit up, conspiracy theory, etc.

Yep, I suspect I subscribe to the very libertarian side in essence, yet recognise that no one system or idea is the complete answer.

To be totally honest I do not think humanity will solve this one. At all.

Why, because we do not have the long term thinking/visualisation needed. And as a group we are inherently lazy. Wanting answers now. even if they have not worked the times before they were tried.

The solution is to change society in such a way that those born at the bottom have the capacity to understand that there is a set of steps laid out for them to climb. But that would take a huge investment in time, in changing our schooling systems, in ensuring those at the bottom get the push to start them climbing, and recognition that initially most will fail. And that its not our fault.

Okay, take this video discussion, starting at about 26:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ11v9xgnhY

Yeah if you look at society, roughly every 50 years is an improvement on the previous 50. But its haphazard. there is no formal method of improvement. The improvement is happening in the west anyway, despite which political party chooses to put forward its ideology. We swap back and forwards but still the improvement happens.

Stephen Pinker on the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stev..._numbers?language=en

I also wonder at how we judge poverty? My grandaprents by todays standards, would have been considered poor. No TV, No mobile phone. one car, a -$10,000 a year income, a very basic house by todays standards. yet they were reasonably happy and managed to save enough in thier lifetime to do a trip to italy once they retired.
Do we actually on average just have too much nowadays?... Or expect too much?

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yep, I suspect I subscribe to the very libertarian side in essence, yet recognise that no one system or idea is the complete answer.

To be totally honest I do not think humanity will solve this one. At all.

Why, because we do not have the long term thinking/visualisation needed. And as a group we are inherently lazy. Wanting answers now. even if they have not worked the times before they were tried.

The solution is to change society in such a way that those born at the bottom have the capacity to understand that there is a set of steps laid out for them to climb. But that would take a huge investment in time, in changing our schooling systems, in ensuring those at the bottom get the push to start them climbing, and recognition that initially most will fail. And that its not our fault.

100%

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah if you look at society, roughly every 50 years is an improvement on the previous 50. But its haphazard. there is no formal method of improvement. The improvement is happening in the west anyway, despite which political party chooses to put forward its ideology. We swap back and forwards but still the improvement happens.

Stephen Pinker on the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stev..._numbers?language=en

I also wonder at how we judge poverty? My grandaprents by todays standards, would have been considered poor. No TV, No mobile phone. one car, a -$10,000 a year income, a very basic house by todays standards. yet they were reasonably happy and managed to save enough in thier lifetime to do a trip to italy once they retired.
Do we actually on average just have too much nowadays?... Or expect too much?

My Grandparents exactly the same and happy as clams. My father’s mother birthed 11 kids. The first 3 in a house with dirt floors and only a rock fireplace for both heat and cooking. My Dad’s oldest brother, born in that house, is alive today living in a very nice house on a large ranch.

I am 58 years old. Yes there are improvements today over when I was 8 for sure. But in regards to society, there has been a net loss — IMHO. I would gladly rather exist with the society of 1973 than that of 2023.

Society today is much LESS civil than society of 1973.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...4303abc2b652f7257a13

Mike Rowe warns government enabling millions of men to quit working: 'Not letting them fail'


Fox News Opinion by Kristine Parks • Yesterday 1:29 PM

Yes exactly ME! I think by and large we are on a similar page here. And Mike Rowe is awesome! His message should be in every school in the world to be honest!
The welfare state has taken the wrong fork in the road. It was meant to be a hand up. not a hand out. I like that fact its there because I dont know what the future brings and Id like to know If I for some reason cant work for some time, that I have that hand up. But I never intend to use it! And never have.
These conversations for politicians are too hard though. Just imagine politician seriously broaching the topic of working for the unemployment benefit- because I seriously think you should get nothing for free. Go on the benefit and spend 3 days a week tidying your community. because they are the ones who are now supporting you. The other 4 days should be spent looking for work.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah if you look at society, roughly every 50 years is an improvement on the previous 50. But its haphazard. there is no formal method of improvement. The improvement is happening in the west anyway, despite which political party chooses to put forward its ideology. We swap back and forwards but still the improvement happens.

Stephen Pinker on the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stev..._numbers?language=en

I also wonder at how we judge poverty? My grandaprents by todays standards, would have been considered poor. No TV, No mobile phone. one car, a -$10,000 a year income, a very basic house by todays standards. yet they were reasonably happy and managed to save enough in thier lifetime to do a trip to italy once they retired.
Do we actually on average just have too much nowadays?... Or expect too much?

My Grandparents exactly the same and happy as clams. My father’s mother birthed 11 kids. The first 3 in a house with dirt floors and only a rock fireplace for both heat and cooking. My Dad’s oldest brother, born in that house, is alive today living in a very nice house on a large ranch.

I am 58 years old. Yes there are improvements today over when I was 8 for sure. But in regards to society, there has been a net loss — IMHO. I would gladly rather exist with the society of 1973 than that of 2023.

Society today is much LESS civil than society of 1973.

I think society then was far more homogenous. in that groups were tighter and didnt mix or conflict as much. This is why i think the Scandinavian countries are doing so well, they are still homogenous in nature and so building a society of agreement is easier.

But you might not want to live in the 60s or 70s if you are a Black american for example.

I like today- But I do wish we had carried forth some of yesterdays concepts instead of abandoning so much.

As I said, I'm trying to present more than one side of this discussion.

I find aspects of both sides with merit.

Yep I think so too.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah if you look at society, roughly every 50 years is an improvement on the previous 50. But its haphazard. there is no formal method of improvement. The improvement is happening in the west anyway, despite which political party chooses to put forward its ideology. We swap back and forwards but still the improvement happens.

Stephen Pinker on the subject.

https://www.ted.com/talks/stev..._numbers?language=en

I also wonder at how we judge poverty? My grandaprents by todays standards, would have been considered poor. No TV, No mobile phone. one car, a -$10,000 a year income, a very basic house by todays standards. yet they were reasonably happy and managed to save enough in thier lifetime to do a trip to italy once they retired.
Do we actually on average just have too much nowadays?... Or expect too much?

My Grandparents exactly the same and happy as clams. My father’s mother birthed 11 kids. The first 3 in a house with dirt floors and only a rock fireplace for both heat and cooking. My Dad’s oldest brother, born in that house, is alive today living in a very nice house on a large ranch.

I am 58 years old. Yes there are improvements today over when I was 8 for sure. But in regards to society, there has been a net loss — IMHO. I would gladly rather exist with the society of 1973 than that of 2023.

Society today is much LESS civil than society of 1973.

I think society then was far more homogenous. in that groups were tighter and didnt mix or conflict as much. This is why i think the Scandinavian countries are doing so well, they are still homogenous in nature and so building a society of agreement is easier.

But you might not want to live in the 60s or 70s if you are a Black american for example.

I like today- But I do wish we had carried forth some of yesterdays concepts instead of abandoning so much.

I started grade school in a school that was 50% white, 25% black, & 25% hispanic in a cotton farming community in north Texas in 1970. I saw no discrimination. As kids…we all played together fine.

Don’t buy into so much what you hear.

Yeah I dont know the situation over there for sure, I just know the situation with Maori and pakeha in NZ and so presume there was something similar.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Yeah I dont know the situation over there for sure, I just know the situation with Maori and pakeha in NZ and so presume there was something similar.

There was a time…but it was way before 1970.