The Question of Patriotism as it Relates to Diversity

[Sigfried]

Socialism and communism are related in the same sense that a grandfather is related to a grandchild, one does not directly come from the other but they share an ancestry.

We agree on that though grandfather and grandchild, by most reconing, is a close kinship.

And as for nihilism good luck on finding any philosophy on the subject that is not usually written by someone opposing it. The only supporting arguments are not actually philosophy per se. But it does survive in literature. In fact it is interesting that americans do not know much about nihilism as your society underwent a nihilist revolution in the early twentieth century. Some of the best nihilist writers are americans, kerouac, steinbeck hemingway to name a few. And a group of those writers were at the core of your social revolution. You have heard of the beatnik generation? Some great writers came from that generation and much of their writing questions what society values. And in many ways support the idea that value has no real meaning.

I found the wikipedia entry on the subject to be largely non-judgemental of it. I've never been much for existential dispair or the like. I actually do think life is intrinsicly meaningless and there are no moral absolutes, but It never bothered me any. Mankinds needs for such things can be supplied by mankindds invention of such things and any challenge that is purely a product of our psychology is something we can probably handle.

As to the beat generation, they became materialistic yuppies by and large.

I can throw this " your not an american " thing at you. Your not the rest of the world and have no idea just how weird it is to see something that can be so funny as well as being appalling and horrible.

Oh, its pretty weird to me too, I even made a blog post about it... So America Shits the Bed When people in the US tell me they are frightened by a Trump presidencey I remind them it's really the rest of the world that has a lot more to fear, we after all have the worlds largest militiary and a very healthy stockplie of nuclear weapons.

That does not quite explain the isolationist tendencies. A lack of passport ownership in america. And america for all its hypocritical talk of peace has been involved in every war around the world since the creation of america. Either by selling arms or armies. So yes, your interests in all those things are very profitable for your country as a whole. No problem selling guns, just don't want to visit the places you sell them to.

Not sure how many poeple you think should have passports but its arround 35-40%. Americans travel to Canada and Mexico quite often. to go to any other country is really quite expensive and time consuming and a lot of Americans don't get a lot of vacation time. Plus, its a huge country so there are lots of places to go inside the US. That doesn't make us isolationist.

And yes, sadly we seem quite happy to sell the world lots of guns. Terrible habbit in my opinion. Then again, the world apparently wants to buy those guns from us, bad habbit there as well.

No, what i said was a free market laissez-faire economy did lead to a dictatorship. As far a i know no country ever succeeded in creating a communist state.

You are like a broken record, not listening or responding to my statements.

Apparently, attempts to create communists states have all led to dictatorship just like those trying to make laissez-fair ones. Yet this is a critique of free markets to you but not of communism. you say "well the communists all did it wrong!" But the right can just as easily say no one has done free markets right either. And they do, I have to listen to it all the time. "This isn't capitalism, its crony capitalism, totally different!" etc...

Every ideological axe grinder things no one who fails is a true follower of their ideological agenda, yet those axe grinders just sit on the side lines and imagine their utopian dream. Its easy to say how great it is if you never try to make it, and when you do, the gritty reality sets in and wham, you find yourself in an authoritarian scheme of some kind when the dust settles.

I said a capitalist based society which of course was a mercantile economy of england. You can accuse me of not being specific but not of not understanding your history. The base history you are giving me does not change my statement that the government that was created after that revolution lasted not that long before devolving.

Devolving how exactly? Best I can think of is the civil war, that was pretty devolved but I look at it as purging the government of one of its greatest betraials of the ideals of natural rights. So that's hardly devolving in my book. If you have something specific in mind spit it out. I don't see a devolution of the US government but a long running refinement.

Correct me if i am wrong but are you saying that as long as any poor american man can look his child in the eye and say, " One day you too can be a despot and control the lives of all you see at a whim." That's a good thing, is it ?????

You are wrong. It is a better thing than a society whre a child born in a lower class can't become anything but a slave, thats for sure. The fluidity of American social classes was something of the envy of the world for a time. And not everyone who is rich or successful is a despot. What you do with your wealth and power once you achieve it is up to you for the most part.

So again, the morality here is that if the child manages to sneak a biscuit without the parents knowing or even after the parents saying that they should not, no harm, no foul then?

I'm a pretty no harm no foul kind of fellow. If there is no harm in taking a biscuit then there shouldn't be a rule agaisnt taking the biscuit. If the parents didn't say anything about it, well then there isn't even an artificial reason not to take it. I don't follow rules just for the sake of following rules, I do things for the good of myself and others.

Mostly not corrupt. That's like a little bit pregnant.

How so?

It is the system not the mechanics that is questionable. The first question being can a two party system FPP voting system really be said to actually represent nearly 320 million people?

Sure. In agregate. Does it mean everyone gets exactly what they want? Hell no but how could you do anything at a national level and achieve 320 million people all having their own indidual say on any given question? It's impossible.

Just as a metaphor it doesn't work for you? Can i too ask for more specific information or is it just you who can play the analogy?

No to the first question (I don't understand your metaphor) and yes to the second qyestion, ask whatever you like. Unlike you, I seem capable of actualy answering questions put to m in a direct manner.

Where do you think mutual cooperation comes from in a libertarian society.

It is supposed to come from voluntary agreement.

The discussion really should be around the facts that actually effect those involved. Not imagining some tree hugging communal asking how you might " feel" about it. Nor should some outside force that has no direct concern in the matter be involved unless asked to. In such a situation no direct law could cover the variables involved. In most western societies such things can be handled through courts and such court systems can still exist in even a libertarian socialist society.
Answered.

You are very bad at answering questions. Are you allergic to workds such as "yes" and "no"? They are incredibly effective at conveying information. Explainers are all well and good, but they should come with a nod or shake of the head.

I'm going to gaze into my crystal ball.... I'm seeing a fuzzy small fruit, or is that a testicle... hard to say, Ah wait there it is.... I think the answer you are thring to give me is "Yes, I have to ask permission to build my Dam and sell the Power."

OK then. Well if I have to ask permission from people then they are limiting my liberty in some respect.

[SoylentGreen]

I found the wikipedia entry on the subject to be largely non-judgemental of it. I've never been much for existential dispair or the like. I actually do think life is intrinsicly meaningless and there are no moral absolutes, but It never bothered me any. Mankinds needs for such things can be supplied by mankindds invention of such things and any challenge that is purely a product of our psychology is something we can probably handle.
As to the beat generation, they became materialistic yuppies by and large.

Existential despair and the like is why this is not a philosophy. But something that is better expressed in literature.

Oh, its pretty weird to me too, I even made a blog post about it... So America Shits the Bed When people in the US tell me they are frightened by a Trump presidencey I remind them it's really the rest of the world that has a lot more to fear, we after all have the worlds largest militiary and a very healthy stockplie of nuclear weapons.

True, the fear is not that america will go down but that it will go down kicking and screaming and taking the rest of us with it.

Not sure how many poeple you think should have passports but its arround 35-40%. Americans travel to Canada and Mexico quite often.

In nz it is customary for young adults to do an OE. (Overseas Experience) Intention is to go to europe but usually end up in queensland. The point being that traveling to the neighboring country really does not count as an overseas experience to those who have tried something a little more adventurous.

to go to any other country is really quite expensive and time consuming and a lot of Americans don't get a lot of vacation time. Plus, its a huge country so there are lots of places to go inside the US. That doesn't make us isolationist.

Well! Actually, they are the kind of reasons that isolationists do use when explaining why they do not travel. Just saying...

And yes, sadly we seem quite happy to sell the world lots of guns. Terrible habbit in my opinion. Then again, the world apparently wants to buy those guns from us, bad habbit there as well.

Apparently? Not that i am one for conspiracy theories but, didn't the iranian government fall because the ayatollah used information about cia involvement in their government? Which created a need for guns in that area of the world.

You are like a broken record, not listening or responding to my statements.

Apparently, attempts to create communists states have all led to dictatorship just like those trying to make laissez-fair ones. Yet this is a critique of free markets to you but not of communism. you say "well the communists all did it wrong!" But the right can just as easily say no one has done free markets right either. And they do, I have to listen to it all the time. "This isn't capitalism, its crony capitalism, totally different!" etc...

Not at all. As i said at the beginning you are ignoring intent. The russian bolsheviks had no intention of implementing a communist state. Where as the argentinian experiment was deliberately created to set out neolibertarian economic policies and failed.

Every ideological axe grinder things no one who fails is a true follower of their ideological agenda, yet those axe grinders just sit on the side lines and imagine their utopian dream. Its easy to say how great it is if you never try to make it, and when you do, the gritty reality sets in and wham, you find yourself in an authoritarian scheme of some kind when the dust settles.

In debate you may have heard of godwins law. it is a kind of game in that the first to mention hitler looses. The same game can be played for utopia and you loose.
I was aware of you leading up to this and thought that if given enough rope...
But i covered my arse on this when i stated that i lean towards engels triad theory. conflict, not utopia.

Devolving how exactly? Best I can think of is the civil war, that was pretty devolved but I look at it as purging the government of one of its greatest betraials of the ideals of natural rights. So that's hardly devolving in my book. If you have something specific in mind spit it out. I don't see a devolution of the US government but a long running refinement.

Devolving as in, again, intent. Your revolution over, your government formed and lasted a few decades as a republic and then the politics starts turning to custard and the oligarchy take over.

You are wrong. It is a better thing than a society whre a child born in a lower class can't become anything but a slave, thats for sure. The fluidity of American social classes was something of the envy of the world for a time. And not everyone who is rich or successful is a despot. What you do with your wealth and power once you achieve it is up to you for the most part.

When actually was that time? Does america try to live off its past glory in other areas as well instead of maintaining them? And is this not still allowing for criminal behaviour simply because some can profit legally from it?

I'm a pretty no harm no foul kind of fellow. If there is no harm in taking a biscuit then there shouldn't be a rule agaisnt taking the biscuit. If the parents didn't say anything about it, well then there isn't even an artificial reason not to take it. I don't follow rules just for the sake of following rules, I do things for the good of myself and others.

But that is not the case, there is harm in taking the biscuit. The parents have said have something about it. And the rules were set there on the supposition that they would protect the biscuit. To make the analogy a bit more sensible. Having an oligarchy instead of the republic that was sold to you is harmful, The constitution was written with the supposition that it would prevent an oligarchy, Or at least is that not the dream of america that it is a land of the free not one ruled by tyranny no matter how well it may have hidden itself?

How so?

Well you either are or you are not.

Sure. In agregate. Does it mean everyone gets exactly what they want? Hell no but how could you do anything at a national level and achieve 320 million people all having their own indidual say on any given question? It's impossible.

Why should i care? All the sudden i am some libertarian individualist or something? i do not have to uphold some weird belief about being all equal or every individual having their say or whatever is supporting that question.
There are systems where multiple political parties can share governance.

No to the first question (I don't understand your metaphor) and yes to the second qyestion, ask whatever you like. Unlike you, I seem capable of actualy answering questions put to m in a direct manner.

Okay! The answer is basically the same for both as a good metaphor should be. Which is, what are you actually offering and what are you prepared to do.
take a look at what you say next

It is supposed to come from voluntary agreement.

Yet how can i make such an agreement based on what you have said so far. Which is that you intend to build a dam and will have six other people involved but due to business constraints you are not willing to give me details such as how much it will cost or who will pay for it or what environmental effect it might have or any real details. If you would voluntarily agree to this contract then as an aside to this debate i also have an elderly grandmother in brooklyn who actually owns a bridge she needs to sell, i am handling the finances for her, would you be interested in buying one?

You are very bad at answering questions. Are you allergic to workds such as "yes" and "no"? They are incredibly effective at conveying information. Explainers are all well and good, but they should come with a nod or shake of the head.

yeah/ nah.

I'm going to gaze into my crystal ball.... I'm seeing a fuzzy small fruit, or is that a testicle... hard to say, Ah wait there it is.... I think the answer you are thring to give me is "Yes, I have to ask permission to build my Dam and sell the Power."

OK then. Well if I have to ask permission from people then they are limiting my liberty in some respect.

Point taken and accepted. As i said even dealing with one other person over any issue and compromise sets in. To me what looks like an actual pathway of human interaction is to you is a brickwall blocking progress.

[Sigfried]

Point taken and accepted. As i said even dealing with one other person over any issue and compromise sets in. To me what looks like an actual pathway of human interaction is to you is a brickwall blocking progress.

Damn Soilent we had to go through all that to get a straight answer to my rather simple question, and now you miss the point by a country mile. If you feel this is more discussion than debate, please treat it like one and listen a little more. Try to understand my viewpoint and share your own rather than be so evasive and cirucmspect.

I started out with a critique of Liberalism, that no matter which way it turns it ends up compromising it's core ideal, which is individual liberty. You seemed to suggest that the left leaning libertarian ideal would not do so. I created my example of the damn to illustrate how any form of governance results in a loss of individual liberty. You then played beat around the bush for a few posts only to finally say conclude that I somehow think that I find cooperation a brick wall to progress.

All to often on ODN and elsewhere people make the mistake of presuming what others think based on the fact they are arguing with them. If you want to know what I think about something, ask me, don't presume to know. I said up front that while I like the ideal of individual liberty, I don't think Libertarian ideals of government actually work. They almost inevitably betray the ideal they seek to serve.

I am not an idealog, I'm a pragmatist. While I have a number of ideas I hold to, ultimately I think the best course of action is largely determined by the curcimstances you find yourself in. Human beings (as I said multiple times) are social creatures. We can't effectively survive without making compromises and sacrificing our own individual whims for some level of social norms that allow for greater trust and cooperation. I don't personally care if that is a socialist model or a market model, I only care which ends up being more effective at satisfying some basic human needs while still allowing individual expression and diversity of thought.

I think that much of what humans do, ends up being a pretty good solution given the circumstances because it is natural that bad systems fail over time and inflexible societies eventually run aground as where flexible ones adapt to change and find better and better ways of surviving and thriving. I try to look for both the value and flaws of various political systems. Ultimately I think mixed systems of government are good, they take what works from various ideologies that when attempted in some kind of purity ultimately lead to ruin becasue they are inflexible and idealistic rather than pragmatic.

---------- Post added at 11:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:51 AM ----------

Apparently? Not that i am one for conspiracy theories but, didn't the iranian government fall because the ayatollah used information about cia involvement in their government? Which created a need for guns in that area of the world.

I tend to feel that all despots fall sooner or later. I don't think if we had our druthers that we would want the Ayatollah to take over so there would be more need for weapons. We could have sold him plenty I'm sure. The justification for poking our heads into other countries politics tends to be, If we don't others will. But frankly I'd rather let others wade into those minefields and suffer the consiquences of their arrogance. I am OK with helping commited allies maintain their own regimes, but I would choose allies more selectively than America has in the past.

---------- Post added at 11:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------

In debate you may have heard of godwins law. it is a kind of game in that the first to mention hitler looses. The same game can be played for utopia and you loose.
I was aware of you leading up to this and thought that if given enough rope...
But i covered my arse on this when i stated that i lean towards engels triad theory. conflict, not utopia.

I wasn't aware of the utopia rule. But you opened yourself to the critique when you kept telling me that all the communist regimes in the world aren't actual communists. It tends to make you seem like a utopian idealist. Why don't you tell me what your actuall polticial views are. What type of state do you think is best, how should it be achieved, and what examples can you offer for it?

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

Not at all. As i said at the beginning you are ignoring intent. The russian bolsheviks had no intention of implementing a communist state. Where as the argentinian experiment was deliberately created to set out neolibertarian economic policies and failed.

Says you. Care to actually back that up? Everything I've seen from bolshevik writers is that they sought to impliment a communist state.

---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

Devolving as in, again, intent. Your revolution over, your government formed and lasted a few decades as a republic and then the politics starts turning to custard and the oligarchy take over.

When exactly was america not an Oligarchy? It was formed by rich land owners and originally only white land owners could have a say in how it was run. So I'd conten if we are an oligarchy now, we have always been one. If anything we are less of one that we once were, or at least have greater potential for that since so much more of the population has the franchise of the vote.

---------- Post added at 12:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 PM ----------

When actually was that time? Does america try to live off its past glory in other areas as well instead of maintaining them? And is this not still allowing for criminal behaviour simply because some can profit legally from it?

(The time of social mobility being an envy of the world). Well, it was during the colonial era of the major powers of europe and through much of the early 18th and 19th century period. Class mobility in most european countries was notoriously limited. You still see this in some other nations as well but over time the liberalization of social systems around the world follwed an American pattern and today I think class hierarchy is not especially entrenched in most of the world. It still exists, but not in the way it once did. Most cultures celebrate egalitarianism these days. It wasn't always like that.

As to allowing criminal behavoir for profit, well I don't think that is unique to America and generally speaking America does make earnest attempts to prosecute businesses who we can prove engage in criminal activity. It's not always easy to do.

---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

Why should i care?

(He asked if the vote can represent 320 million people, I answered saying that it could so much as it was possible as representing that many people is inherently callenging.) As to why you should care... well presumably you don't ask questions unless you care about the answer. Or are you just trying to waste my time and attention on rhetorical questions?

[SoylentGreen]

Evasive and circumspect actually means I am not giving you the easy answers you would prefer.
You of course are facing a brick wall with the fact that you are in fact a idealog because you are treating the ideals of philosophy as if they were fixed. Fair enough to do if discussing pure ideology. But a philosophy such as socialism or the others are meant also to be living philosophies where the ideology should change according to the reality around it. Not some silly remark that governance will stop individual freedom. Libertarian ideals of individual freedom are what is wrong not the fact that reality creates conformity when dealing with others. Buy into your silly libertarian superstitions of individual freedom and of course libertarianism will not work.
But as is typical of a libertarian they will spend more time angsting over why reality will not keep up with their idiotic ideals.
I have said it before but either you ignore or not understand. So I will make it a bit more clear. Libertarianism is a joke. A foolish religion and as such my only stand can be that of ignostic. I have no idea what kind of foolish ideas about individual freedom someone has until they say so. Otherwise I am stuck with doing what we both know is wrong and that is start assuming what ever ideology you might dream up. Thus, this is not a debate but a conversation until you, and only you can, tell me what your libertarian superstitions are.

A pragmatist would change his ideology to fit reality not moan that the ideology he believes in will not fit the reality around him.
It is ridiculous to say that governance must adhere to some ideological point of personal liberty when the reality tells us different.

I seem to recall a democratically elected government of Iran being overthrown due to interference from the cia and a despot being installed rather than a despot being overthrown.

Again you misinterpret me. I will take it on board that I am not explaining myself well.
Communism does exist but the Bolshevik ideals are dead. Because they are not communism even in the slightest sense. Despite advertising themselves as such and despite the Americans propagandist cold war against Russia built them up in the minds of Americans as communists and then portrayed communism as evil
Communism today is a completely different ideology from what even Marx had in mind or what most Americans are still taught to fear.
Wow!! Everything you read says that the Russians did try to pass their tyranny over as communism??? Well everything I have read says that America tried to create a land of the free not some dunghill that is really run by a few wealthy hidden tyrants. Care to back up that what is said about America is any more true that what you heard about Russia.
Your voting system is a joke, nor does it do anything to reveal the lack of oligarchs making your decisions for you.
Your social mobility is also a joke in 21St century where social mobility has become the norm in the western world. Is it all that America has these days? Is this it, all you can do is point to and try and live off past and no longer substantial claims from the past. What next, that we should still be grateful to America for their assistance in ww2 Because you really cannot think of anything you have done for the world Lately?

I am not the one trying to support some garbagel libertarian ideology of individuality therefore I care little that some impossible standard of liberty may not be met by a socialist government.

[Sigfried]

Evasive and circumspect actually means I am not giving you the easy answers you would prefer.

I've spen the 47 years of my life avoiding easy answers. But I like direct ones none the less. Be clear and be consise. Think about what you are saying and what other people are saying. Try to add to any conversation and be direct in addressing questions. These are halmarks of good communication.

You of course are facing a brick wall with the fact that you are in fact a idealog because you are treating the ideals of philosophy as if they were fixed.

Again, it is very imature in thought to presume you know what I think. I could type all day about what you think and I would be dead wrong. I can only speak to what you type, and I don't even know if you managed to get across your idea in words or not. Every time you say "you are ...." you make an ass of yourself. Stick to what you know of yourself and let me speak for myself. You can tell me what you think I think but you are almost always going to be wrong until you know me better. In the words of the sage Vanilla Ice. "STOP, collaborate and listen"

Fair enough to do if discussing pure ideology. But a philosophy such as socialism or the others are meant also to be living philosophies where the ideology should change according to the reality around it. Not some silly remark that governance will stop individual freedom. Libertarian ideals of individual freedom are what is wrong not the fact that reality creates conformity when dealing with others. Buy into your silly libertarian superstitions of individual freedom and of course libertarianism will not work.

So you think individuality is a superstition? Strange, I seem to be an individual with my own individual opinions leading what I deem to be a life largely guided by my choices within the framework of the situations I find myself in and my fellow human beings. I have my own style, my own thoughts, and responsibility for my own actions. Do you presume I am a clone of some other human and mimic their every move? Why not explain why you think individualism is a superstition.

Do you not value individual expression? Do you think art and literature are useless? Do you find everyone of equal moral and intilectual value?

Why not dig down and tell me about your views rather than projecting your imagination onto me?

I have said it before but either you ignore or not understand. So I will make it a bit more clear. Libertarianism is a joke. A foolish religion and as such my only stand can be that of ignostic. I have no idea what kind of foolish ideas about individual freedom someone has until they say so. Otherwise I am stuck with doing what we both know is wrong and that is start assuming what ever ideology you might dream up. Thus, this is not a debate but a conversation until you, and only you can, tell me what your libertarian superstitions are.

Why dont you just ask if you want to know something? Only a fool charges arround assuming he knows another man without asking after him.

I like the ideal of liberty for the individual so long is does not pose a due threat on others liberty. I think that group think human culture is much like natural evolution. It is a flexible system that benefits from specilization and adaptation, as well as stability. If organisms always stayed the same, aka they had no ability for varriation, they would inevitably perrish when the environment changes. If organisms were constantly changing without limit, then no good survivable trairs would persist long enough to enable survival. What you see in nature is a delicate system where by the core genetic code has many mechanisms to maintain its form, but just enough room for change to allow a range of individual variation and mutation so that if some environmental change happens there are going to be members of the species with trates that can cope with that change.

Human beings undeniably have many common traits and yet we also have a great deal if individual variation. Even those of us with identical genetic material end up rather unique. It benefits all of us to have this variation. Partly because some individuals are much better suited to some activities than others, and because the huge range of individual thought leads to a wide range of inovation and invention. This is the raw material with whic society builds a greater whole and is the source material for the ideas that can be adopted and perfected through cooperative work to do great and wondrous things.

Thus I think that when there is no compelling need to squash individual innovation it is best to let it flourish, and further, any time we consider individual expression agaisnt some need for comformity we should carefully value not only that individuals particular expression but the overall value of the principle of individualism. An idea we today find problematic, may tommorow be of great value to us and if we snuff it out we may loose that possibility forever much as if we take a species of plant or animal to extinction. Whatever unrealized value it may have had, in our ignorance, we have deprived ourselves the opportunity.

Now if you were a staunch libertarian you would be reading me sing the praises of cooperation and compromise for the good of the group. That is because I think those elements of society are equally if not more important. But since you don't seem to need a sales pitch on that, I'm content leave it at that.

A final note about liberty. I've a saying; "life is too short to waste it all doing great things." I think that a good live involves a certain amount of self love and pleasure seeking. I'm no headenist, but I think to love others well you should love yourself first as we all see the world through the lens of our own sense of self. Generally, most people know their own desires better than others do. Thus when it comes to how to live your own day to day live, know one knows better than you do. Nepal has an interesting social metric they call Gross National Happyness or something like that. The idea being they value a sense of satisfaction and contentment as a key metric to how well their society is doing. I find that to be a wise consideration. And I think that by allowing for indivudual liberty and expression we foster greater happyness in people. That sid of course, any such individual choice should not be ruining someone elses sense of peace and joy. We are social creatures so there will and must always be constraints.

A pragmatist would change his ideology to fit reality not moan that the ideology he believes in will not fit the reality around him.

I agree. It's what I strive towards.

It is ridiculous to say that governance must adhere to some ideological point of personal liberty when the reality tells us different.

True enough. I think reality tells us that individuality is imporant and so is cooperation. We must find a functional balance between the two. When times are good then individuality should be allowed to flourish since situations of plenty allow for errors and experimentation. When times are challenging and grim, it is essential for our survival that we act in more unison to deal with eminint threats but we should be making use of all that inovation that we did in a time of plenty to choose the most potent strategy for our efforts.

I seem to recall a democratically elected government of Iran being overthrown due to interference from the cia and a despot being installed rather than a despot being overthrown.

I seem to recall the CIA despot being overthrown by a radical islamist movement that had the support of the people. Its funny you would think that it ws the CIA coup I was referencing and not the revolution that followed. What the US did in Iran was a horrible mistake and we have been paying for it ever since in our blood and others even more so in their blood. It's bad to make a mistake you suffer for, much worse to make a mistake others must suffer even more for.

Again you misinterpret me. I will take it on board that I am not explaining myself well.

That happens. Communication is difficult. By internet more so. On complicated topics more so. Thank you for listening and trying to explain in greater detail.

Communism does exist but the Bolshevik ideals are dead. Because they are not communism even in the slightest sense. Despite advertising themselves as such and despite the Americans propagandist cold war against Russia built them up in the minds of Americans as communists and then portrayed communism as evil

Can you explain to my by way of examples which principles the Bolsheviks differed from communism as you see it?

Do you think there is only one true version of communism or is it possible to have different branches of communist thnking?

What do you view as the difinitive definition of Communism? Or what essential traits do you see defining it?

Communism today is a completely different ideology from what even Marx had in mind or what most Americans are still taught to fear.

Do you have an example of communism today as implimented by some state or group?

Wow!! Everything you read says that the Russians did try to pass their tyranny over as communism??? Well everything I have read says that America tried to create a land of the free not some dunghill that is really run by a few wealthy hidden tyrants. Care to back up that what is said about America is any more true that what you heard about Russia.

No, look, again you are making some big jumps here. I deal in small steps most of the time. What I have read, is that the Bolsheviks claimed to be trying to impliment a Communist state and that many of the principles under which they did it were very much based on Communist thinkers of the time and the core principles of communism such as public ownership of capital, and rule by the people, and a society without economic classes, and a society in which the state cares equally for all citizens. I'm not an expert in Communism. I only can know what I've manage to read or hear from people.

And again, you really don't know that much about America. Its not a dunghill and while it is an oligarchy of sorts it is not run by secret masters in the shadows. Its run by rich and privilaged people the Americans by and large select to run it. You have a real chip on your shoulder about the country I live in. I promise you, by and large its a very nice place with very nice people in it who live rather free and happy lives for the most part. Like anywhere it has its problems and we struggle to deal with them. I respect that we are uniquely dangerous among nations of the world and thus bare critique, but try to put away the hyperbol for a bit.

Your voting system is a joke, nor does it do anything to reveal the lack of oligarchs making your decisions for you.

It is a good system by and large. If you have a specific critique, by all means bring it but just calling it a joke is meaningless. The second sentence makes little sense. Why should voting reveal a lack of oligarchs? I'm pretty sure we do in fact have oligarchs here so how could we reveal a lack of them and why should voting do that?

Your social mobility is also a joke in 21St century where social mobility has become the norm in the western world. Is it all that America has these days?

No, it's just that we were talking about class and oligarchy. The point was that what oligarchs we have changes over time. We have lots of things going for us. We are after all the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Whatever you think of America there is no doubt that what we did in the past was effective. Its like saying to a gold medal olympian, other than winning the event what else have you got going for you as a swimmer??!!

You've said yoruself you have never been here so you likely woudln't know. I've spent the last year traveling the US, in another year or two I'll have spent time in all the 50 states and really I'll have just scrached the surface. It's an amazing place. The last year has been speant mostly in desert environments that are incredibly gorgeous. One of the benefits of being such a large nation geographically is we have preserved a great deal of our wilderness areas from development. They are truly wonders and there are so many few ever see them all in a lifetime. Of course that does not make us unique, but it is one of the great things about my country.

We also have some of the most presitgeous and well funded coleldges in the world. We have many fantastic libraries. Many of our industries are incredibly vibrant and dynamic. We have done some incredible things in space exploration and science. America has produced a great many world famous artists, authors, and thinkers. All in a fairly short historical time span.

All that said, we've done some great evils in our history as well. America is not an angel by any stretch.

Is this it, all you can do is point to and try and live off past and no longer substantial claims from the past. What next, that we should still be grateful to America for their assistance in ww2 Because you really cannot think of anything you have done for the world Lately?

It is not Americas responsibility to do anything for other Nations. What has New Zealand done for the rest of the wold exactly? It really isn't a standard by which nations are typically judged. The purpose of nations (according to our philosophy of government) is to sefeguard the good of the people they govern and represent their political will.

I am not the one trying to support some garbagel libertarian ideology of individuality therefore I care little that some impossible standard of liberty may not be met by a socialist government.

I will note that in future it is pointless to share with you my critique of libertarianism because somehow you seem to think a critiqe ammounts to blind support. You really are in incredibly bad listener. Try for just a few minutes to let go of your anger and resentment and look at me as a fellow human being.

[SoylentGreen]

I've spen the 47 years of my life avoiding easy answers. But I like direct ones none the less. Be clear and be consise. Think about what you are saying and what other people are saying. Try to add to any conversation and be direct in addressing questions. These are halmarks of good communication.


Again, it is very imature in thought to presume you know what I think. I could type all day about what you think and I would be dead wrong. I can only speak to what you type, and I don't even know if you managed to get across your idea in words or not. Every time you say "you are ...." you make an ass of yourself. Stick to what you know of yourself and let me speak for myself. You can tell me what you think I think but you are almost always going to be wrong until you know me better. In the words of the sage Vanilla Ice. "STOP, collaborate and listen"

Only 47? what happened after that?
In retrospect i will accept i could have put a bit more effort in stating my case. But i am not retracting the " you are... " accusation just yet. Instead of leaving it at just accusing you of a remark that governance will stop individual freedom i should have quoted your words.

I am a Libertarian in principle. That means I value individual liberty as a core ideal. That said, unlike those who actively campaign for libertarian policies, I recognize there is a deep conflit/flaw in libertarianism, that is that we are social creatures and living in a society requires compromise and sometimes even capitulation in order to maintain relative peace and cooperation, both of which are essential to living a good life unless you want to live off in the woods by yourself.

In the bit in bold you left out the word ideology. And to paraphrase you, The ideology of individual liberty, a core element of libertarianism, is not achievable in any society. Yet still you you call yourself a Libertarian in principle. Apparently one of those principles must be a belief in liberty to the point where this appears to be a fair deal to you.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have 6 other compatriots who will help me with the project but we will not reveal any other details of our arrangement amongst ourselves citing it as a private concern of our own.

I do not know what passes for laws in your country but in mine contracts containing clauses such as this would be laughed out of court. Six individuals not cooperating and wanting to build a dam?

So you think individuality is a superstition? Strange, I seem to be an individual with my own individual opinions leading what I deem to be a life largely guided by my choices within the framework of the situations I find myself in and my fellow human beings. I have my own style, my own thoughts, and responsibility for my own actions. Do you presume I am a clone of some other human and mimic their every move? Why not explain why you think individualism is a superstition.

Do you not value individual expression? Do you think art and literature are useless? Do you find everyone of equal moral and intilectual value?

Why not dig down and tell me about your views rather than projecting your imagination onto me?

Look on this as a first example of how your complaint of my communication is not a one way street.

No, that is not what i said. i said. " libertarian superstitions of individual freedom", a core element i believe. . I was being clear and concise.

Why dont you just ask if you want to know something? Only a fool charges arround assuming he knows another man without asking after him.

But i do not know what to ask. How can i know what

I am a Libertarian in principle.

even means. I either remain ignostic and wait for you to say or make a few assumptions, go fishing.

I like the ideal of liberty for the individual so long is does not pose a due threat on others liberty. I think that group think human culture is much like natural evolution. It is a flexible system that benefits from specilization and adaptation, as well as stability. If organisms always stayed the same, aka they had no ability for varriation, they would inevitably perrish when the environment changes. If organisms were constantly changing without limit, then no good survivable trairs would persist long enough to enable survival. What you see in nature is a delicate system where by the core genetic code has many mechanisms to maintain its form, but just enough room for change to allow a range of individual variation and mutation so that if some environmental change happens there are going to be members of the species with trates that can cope with that change.

Human beings undeniably have many common traits and yet we also have a great deal if individual variation. Even those of us with identical genetic material end up rather unique. It benefits all of us to have this variation. Partly because some individuals are much better suited to some activities than others, and because the huge range of individual thought leads to a wide range of inovation and invention. This is the raw material with whic society builds a greater whole and is the source material for the ideas that can be adopted and perfected through cooperative work to do great and wondrous things.

Thus I think that when there is no compelling need to squash individual innovation it is best to let it flourish, and further, any time we consider individual expression agaisnt some need for comformity we should carefully value not only that individuals particular expression but the overall value of the principle of individualism. An idea we today find problematic, may tommorow be of great value to us and if we snuff it out we may loose that possibility forever much as if we take a species of plant or animal to extinction. Whatever unrealized value it may have had, in our ignorance, we have deprived ourselves the opportunity.

Thank you for explaining that and taking in good intention i have no disagreement with what you have said.

Now if you were a staunch libertarian you would be reading me sing the praises of cooperation and compromise for the good of the group. That is because I think those elements of society are equally if not more important. But since you don't seem to need a sales pitch on that, I'm content leave it at that.

But i am not a staunch libertarian. It's nice of you to share the the core element of your libertarianism. But you have a long way to go in demonstrating that other philosophies cannot also incorporate that ideology into their own.

A final note about liberty. I've a saying; "life is too short to waste it all doing great things." I think that a good live involves a certain amount of self love and pleasure seeking. I'm no headenist, but I think to love others well you should love yourself first as we all see the world through the lens of our own sense of self. Generally, most people know their own desires better than others do. Thus when it comes to how to live your own day to day live, know one knows better than you do. Nepal has an interesting social metric they call Gross National Happyness or something like that. The idea being they value a sense of satisfaction and contentment as a key metric to how well their society is doing. I find that to be a wise consideration. And I think that by allowing for indivudual liberty and expression we foster greater happyness in people. That sid of course, any such individual choice should not be ruining someone elses sense of peace and joy. We are social creatures so there will and must always be constraints.

Which i do agree with and to me a good reason to question libertarian ideology. And yes, i can still agree with you and say that because i need only point to the OP of this thread and point out that unfortunately you are not the only libertarian in town.

I agree. It's what I strive towards.

Then what was your reasoning behind the six compatriots.

True enough. I think reality tells us that individuality is imporant and so is cooperation. We must find a functional balance between the two. When times are good then individuality should be allowed to flourish since situations of plenty allow for errors and experimentation. When times are challenging and grim, it is essential for our survival that we act in more unison to deal with eminint threats but we should be making use of all that inovation that we did in a time of plenty to choose the most potent strategy for our efforts.

If one philosophy can see reality then so can others. Otherwise libertarians are the only sane ones?

I seem to recall the CIA despot being overthrown by a radical islamist movement that had the support of the people. Its funny you would think that it ws the CIA coup I was referencing and not the revolution that followed. What the US did in Iran was a horrible mistake and we have been paying for it ever since in our blood and others even more so in their blood. It's bad to make a mistake you suffer for, much worse to make a mistake others must suffer even more for.

A mistake! Profitable for a mistake. But i admit that i simply base that on the theory that a good salesman makes a need.

That happens. Communication is difficult. By internet more so. On complicated topics more so. Thank you for listening and trying to explain in greater detail.



Can you explain to my by way of examples which principles the Bolsheviks differed from communism as you see it?

Do you think there is only one true version of communism or is it possible to have different branches of communist thnking?

What do you view as the difinitive definition of Communism? Or what essential traits do you see defining it?



Do you have an example of communism today as implimented by some state or group?



No, look, again you are making some big jumps here. I deal in small steps most of the time. What I have read, is that the Bolsheviks claimed to be trying to impliment a Communist state and that many of the principles under which they did it were very much based on Communist thinkers of the time and the core principles of communism such as public ownership of capital, and rule by the people, and a society without economic classes, and a society in which the state cares equally for all citizens. I'm not an expert in Communism. I only can know what I've manage to read or hear from people.

Claiming to try to implement! If i said to you that i could build you a house would you consider the house built already?
It is not rule by the people, it is a dictatorship of the proletariat. But as i explained the proletariat had been bled and whipped by the the aristocracy and anyone with any power that they were really in no condition to lead themselves as individuals so much as a nation. Lenins victory assured the death of communism by creating a class system that did have an economic class system. The politburo were allowed many luxuries and privileges while those of the next class, the card carrying artisans and businesses were allowed their share of such privileges. Finally a class of the proletariat whose lives were still very much restricted and no workers paradise. Not all citizens were equal. This is a particular kind of communism which should be labeled marxism-leninism. The marx part is the rhetoric the leninist part used as a shield to the world than by actually carrying out anything that was marxist.
Nor was another core tenet considered by any of the russian leaders which was that it is the workers who are the producers of wealth. Therefore they should be the beneficiaries of the profit from that labor. Instead it went to a lifestyle for an elite branch of politicians and so much of that profit was wasted on a war effort by successive leaders that the economy of the country did in the end collapse.
Stalin also must be a consideration. Unless you can name the genius of a communist philosopher who thought up giving a homicidal megalomaniac complete control over the country would be a good bet, what could possibly go wrong?

And again, you really don't know that much about America. Its not a dunghill and while it is an oligarchy of sorts it is not run by secret masters in the shadows. Its run by rich and privilaged people the Americans by and large select to run it. You have a real chip on your shoulder about the country I live in. I promise you, by and large its a very nice place with very nice people in it who live rather free and happy lives for the most part. Like anywhere it has its problems and we struggle to deal with them. I respect that we are uniquely dangerous among nations of the world and thus bare critique, but try to put away the hyperbol for a bit.

Excuse the excessiveness but it is meant to reflect more my opinion of an oligarchy than america. Again you mistake me for a libertarian and someone who might except such a state.
I agree that it is an oligarchy but not because of economic reasons such as in some cases distribution of wealth can create. Americas case is unique in it being a large continent and one nation as well and that plays a more important role. It is the social structure of the governance that effects the economics and by building a system of laws and governance that allow an oligarchy to exist which is why there is one in your country. Blaming the fact that people get rich and therefore will use manipulative means is also something some libertarians would argue against i believe?

It is a good system by and large. If you have a specific critique, by all means bring it but just calling it a joke is meaningless. The second sentence makes little sense. Why should voting reveal a lack of oligarchs? I'm pretty sure we do in fact have oligarchs here so how could we reveal a lack of them and why should voting do that?

I do not agree that it is a good system even by and large. I have pointed to the fact that it is a two horse race with an FPP system. This is why you keep alluding to this one fat bird with stubby wings theory.

No, it's just that we were talking about class and oligarchy. The point was that what oligarchs we have changes over time. We have lots of things going for us. We are after all the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Whatever you think of America there is no doubt that what we did in the past was effective. Its like saying to a gold medal olympian, other than winning the event what else have you got going for you as a swimmer??!!

That is the trouble. You do have a lot of things going for you. The wealth of your nation is great. In minerals and oil and space to live and land to grow things on. But who among you will argue that what is being done will last forever? That your country can always afford the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Is there not already some disputes over water in your country. When a precious resource such as water becomes rare as it seems to be doing in california, how long can the rich afford their garden and pools?
We should be talking about the oligarchy in the sense that that they are effect not cause.

You've said yoruself you have never been here so you likely woudln't know.

That is quite an assumption, that i would not know. You have also stated

Depending on the American you get varying degrees of world wide political literacy.

. But such varying degrees are not possible outside of the us and about the us as well? Or your actually arguing that for some reason proximity to an object is necessary rather than political literacy to understand something, because i have not been to america i cannot understand america. Are you a young american brought up with the internet? Do you know what a book is?

It is not Americas responsibility to do anything for other Nations. What has New Zealand done for the rest of the wold exactly? It really isn't a standard by which nations are typically judged. The purpose of nations (according to our philosophy of government) is to sefeguard the good of the people they govern and represent their political will.

Unfortunately i have real trouble matching your words about accepting oligarchies with that in bold. Those who make themselves rich regardless of whether deserved and put themselves in positions to govern the lives of others thus becoming the oligarchs and by that definition, rulers of your country. Another reason i am not a libertarian. I have yet to see a good argument that simply becoming wealthy or for that matter being a good business person are the qualities needed to run a country well. This may not be in your particular understanding of libertarianism but the ability to run business and create personal wealth is a part of a libertarian ideology. If you point to the fact again that an oligarchy has not really effected your life style or that of many you might point to then i would remind you that even the natural wealth of your country has limits. Water is a very good one to debate as water has become a valued resource. In the hands of a capitalist minded libertarian it becomes a commodity not a right to life.

I will note that in future it is pointless to share with you my critique of libertarianism because somehow you seem to think a critiqe ammounts to blind support. You really are in incredibly bad listener. Try for just a few minutes to let go of your anger and resentment and look at me as a fellow human being.

You have only yourself to blame. You said be concise. Have i made it perfectly concise that i am not a libertarian or that you should confuse me as to be linked somehow to your one bird with two wings theory.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.