Resolved: Government Is Evil, Business Is Sweetness And Light. Discuss.

[HydrogenBond]

One of the problems with having all the countries of the universe having equal representation, like states, is how do you deal with 7 billion people who all want the same access to the American Dream? If you think the rate of resource usage and amount of pollution is high now; multiply that by 10. This is not sustainable, especially with the global warming scare. 

 

What I hate about the socialists solution, is it create two classes of people. There is the ruling class and the peasant class. To save the planet from this high rate of resource usage, pollution and evil Carbon, the higher powers will limit the dream of luxury to only the ruling class. This ruling class will be in all the countries, via the world government, with just them living large. 

 

The peasant class will also be in all the countries. They will have to sacrifice their dreams, so they can save the planet, so the ruling class can live well and tell then they care. Al Gore has a huge carbon footprint, but this is OK, because he cares about the planet. . Gore does not have to sacrifice anything and would be part of the ruling class; King Gore of Eastern Territory. 

 

How about a world government that is the peasant class? The government would sacrifices the most; tiny government with minimal resources, so there are more resources for the peasants to reach the middle class? 

[Buffy]

One of the problems with having all the countries of the universe having equal representation, like states, is how do you deal with 7 billion people who all want the same access to the American Dream? If you think the rate of resource usage and amount of pollution is high now; multiply that by 10. This is not sustainable, especially with the global warming scare.  

 

Yep, We have this huge problem of hoi polloi from Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and other unpleasant places all wanting to move to California. Please folks, go home, you're not wanted here and we're running out of water growing almonds and gourmet wild rice in the desert to selflessly feed all rich folks everywhere.

 

 

What I hate about the socialists solution, is it create two classes of people. There is the ruling class and the peasant class.   

 

Oh where do I start with all the ways this quote goes wrong. Even Wikipedia is a better place to learn about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat than Fox News.

 

Yes Marx proposed an interim "socialist" form of government as a temporary structure on the way to "true communism" which would not require a government. This "dictatorship" was indeed made up of a "enlightened elite" but that elite in his formulation was not supposed to be priviliged in any way, as they were "servants" of the proletariat, ruling precisely because all of the previous rich rulers had to be removed and reeducated. It's true that that sort of thing has evolved in the Soviet Union, China and their brethren states, but this is simply the weakness in Marx's theory about how such a transition would work, and even in the Soviet sphere there was a recognition that the Communist Party had to have at least a veneer of democratic underpinings to maintain it's legitimacy.

 

But to say the GOAL of socialism is to set up a ruling class is to resort to Alice in Wonderland-style "down is up" logic. Or lack thereof.

 

"Socialism" as practiced in most of the world today has nothing to do with Marx's formulation of a transition to Communism, but is now generally followed by most of the first world as a Democratic structure, with simply an orientation toward recognizing that an efficiently running society needs to support the basic needs of all of its members: extreme poverty causes crime, health-care-by-uninsured-emergency-room-visits increases the cost of healthcare, lack of regulation pretty much insures that industries engage in unsafe practices and manipulate markets to the detriment of consumers.

 

What creates "two classes of people" is concentration of wealth. The traditional conservative argument against "soshulism" has been centered around redistribution of wealth to the "undeserving, lazy poor," which is basically an argument to have a two-class society.

 

And here you are insisting that socialism creates two classes of people? Is there any logic here at all?

 

Your argument here of course is a fabulous example of Karl Rove's famous tactic of "picking your greatest weakness and accusing your opponent of doing it."

 

 

... To save the planet from this high rate of resource usage, pollution and evil Carbon, the higher powers will limit the dream of luxury to only the ruling class. This ruling class will be in all the countries, via the world government, with just them living large. 

 

...and this is different from lassez faire capitalism...how?

 

Are you arguing FOR communism HB?

 

Heck maybe you are:

 

The peasant class will also be in all the countries. They will have to sacrifice their dreams, so they can save the planet, so the ruling class can live well and tell then they care. Al Gore has a huge carbon footprint, but this is OK, because he cares about the planet. . Gore does not have to sacrifice anything and would be part of the ruling class; King Gore of Eastern Territory. 

 

How about a world government that is the peasant class? The government would sacrifices the most; tiny government with minimal resources, so there are more resources for the peasants to reach the middle class? 

 

Are you going all Collectivist on us now, HB?

 

 

The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another - no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

The two things that make the cultural world go around is money and power. Money gives one access to power, via campaign contribution, and/or via bribery, such as in third world countries. Soros (D) and the Koch Brothers ®, who contribute to the two main parties, respectively, have a lot of access to power due to their money.

 

Power, on the other hand, gives one access to money. This can be like Castro becoming a billionaire without needing to run a business. Or it can be done via using one power to vote for bills, that benefits oil or solar power, in exchange for kickbacks, golden parachutes or campaign donations.  

 

Power is more of a thief than business, because power will use tax payer money to give money to big oil to solar, which then comes back to the power brokers. Business is honest enough to use their own money and not steal by spending other people money. 

 

If you rid the world of the money grabbers, what do you do about the power grabbers? The power grabbers have a worse history than the money grabbers. The traditional king, because he has all the power, can use his power, via an army, to centralized all the wealth. The money grabbers have to earn their money and they don't have the right to own their own private armies, nor can they make laws to handcuff the people to buy products like Obamacare. 

 

You quote Marx having envisioned an ideal version of power. Why not an idealized version of business, that can buy and sell, those who are in power, so they don't extort the people with laws and armies? Business have much more limits than power in terms of life and death decisions. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

The two things that make the cultural world go around is money and power. Money gives one access to power, via campaign contribution, and/or via bribery, such as in third world countries. Soros (D) and the Koch Brothers ®, who contribute to the two main parties, respectively, have a lot of access to power due to their money.

 

Glad to see that your paranoia is not equal opportunity.

 

The followup question to "who's spending the money" though is what are they spending it *on* and who *benefits*? The answer to that is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

 

Power, on the other hand, gives one access to money. This can be like Castro becoming a billionaire without needing to run a business. Or it can be done via using one power to vote for bills, that benefits oil or solar power, in exchange for kickbacks, golden parachutes or campaign donations. 

 

"Power in the form of being an elected or unelected representative of government power can make one susceptible to bribery, or at least be very enriching." 

 

Hmmm. Do you think we should get a government grant to test that hypothesis? I'm sure some liberal congresscritter will sponsor it (that is if we bribe them...got any spare change?)....

 

 

Power is more of a thief than business, because power will use tax payer money to give money to big oil to solar, which then comes back to the power brokers. Business is honest enough to use their own money and not steal by spending other people money. 

 

Oh, apparently you do not have cable or cell phone service then. 

 

I assure you I can provide you with oodles of examples of business stealing from consumers.

 

I guess your paranoia is still leaning toward libertarian lassez faire business markets unburdened by government regulations that would prevent "natural" monopolies from developing. (Hint: ALL monopolies are "natural" if you just look at them the right way, and seriously, there's no way a natural monopoly would be anything but completely and totally altruistic and generous to all (well, all shareholders at least (well, maybe just the "deserving" shareholders)))...

 

 

If you rid the world of the money grabbers, what do you do about the power grabbers? The power grabbers have a worse history than the money grabbers. The traditional king, because he has all the power, can use his power, via an army, to centralized all the wealth. 

 

Here's the thing you're clueless about here: your rambling actually implies that the only way for the "powerful" to get corrupted (or at least exercise their power in an ill-considered way), is if there's money to be received: if you can't get rich being powerful, for folks that are bribable, what's the point? The only people who will gravitate to it are those who have motives that are something other than greed in mind.

 

Castro actually comes to mind, and while I guess you can call him a "billionaire" because he does live in a nice house with services that in this country would be considered something representative of being wealthy, but in fact at this point he's on a pension, doesn't have a bank account, and heck have you seen his clothes? Castro's got nothing on Louis XVI. 

 

Yah, dictatorships have kind of fallen by the wayside in terms of popularity, especially with the advent of democracy. That's why we don't have many of them any more, and even Communist countries have evolved away from them except in weird cases like North Korea, and even Raul Castro actually earned his position with his significant roles in the Cuban revolution and managing the Cuban state in a far more significant way than Bush 43 did before he was anointed in 2000. 

 

 

...The money grabbers have to be on the ball to get that much money but they don't have the right to own their own private armies not can they make laws to handcuff the people; have to buy my product like Obamacare. 

 

Um, yah, um, be "on the ball"... 

 

The insurance companies got government to force everyone to buy their product though--mostly through their armies of lobbyists--and even though they're forced to do icky "competition" and have to publish their rates and offers which lowers their obscene profit margins, they're still happy because it dramatically increases their revenues which are even more important than profits.

 

 

The government can do much more, such as steal. It is not money but power that is the worse threat to world peace. ISIS is more like a mini government than a business. 

 

It's of course important to note that Government must be run by a bunch of idiots because they're NOT making stealing any money off of Obamacare....

 

Or just maybe, the people who elected the Government want it to do stuff for *them* as well as doing stuff for the insurance companies.

 

It's a real possibility you know.

 

  

You quote Marx having visioned an ideal version of power. Why not an idealized version of business, that can buy and sell those who are in power so they don't extort the people with laws and armies? Business can't do that. 

 

Well oddly enough, that's exactly the way socialist democracies based on capitalism actually work. There's a recognition of a balance between government regulation that emphasizes protections for the individual as well as the benefits to society of promoting competitive markets, which oddly enough works best by *not allowing the businesses to buy off government officials at all*. That's what's called progressive anti-trust legislation, really pretty much single handedly implemented initially by Commie, Lesbian, Eskimo, Tree-Hugging, Power-Hungry Democratic Party leader, Theodore Roosevelt.

 

 

In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows, :phones: 

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

If business can buy power, then that power was already corrupt. The socialist solution appears to be, you need to take away the booze, so the drunk does not drink. If power was not already a drunk, then it would not be tempted by business. 

 

A business, does not have the power make laws, jail people, force people to buy any product. They do not have an army or a police force. Business and money is weaker than power. Business offers a checks and balance to power. Power gets its money through taxes, donations or stealing. Business can make money from scratch; power is more of a parasite. Money provides checks and balance to power, because money is less dependent and can host the parasites of power. 

 

The parasite of power is stronger but he needs a host. Money/business offers checks and balance by regulating the appetite of the parasite. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

If business can buy power, then that power was already corrupt.

 

That's somewhat coherent. Do you think conservatives would agree with this? If they take money and vote for stuff that businesses want, in fact simply take laws that businesses *write* like ALEC does, and implement them without changing a single word?

 

The socialist solution appears to be, you need to take away the booze, so the drunk does not drink. If power was not already a drunk, then it would not be tempted by business. 

 

Given my previous comment, are you saying that Republicans are socialist?

 

A business, does not have the power make laws, jail people, force people to buy any product. They do not have an army or a police force. Business and money is weaker than power.

 

As I said, try cable TV or Cell phone service: because the folks in power have decided there's no need for competition, there is none.

Your only choice as a consumer is buy what Comcast or Verizon deem is the ideal bundle, buy from some little guy they haven't gotten around to knocking off yet who can't provide a fraction of the service, or go without.

 

Yes, that's what business does to "force" people into buying what they want you to buy at exorbitant rates.

 

You want to try to start a competitor? Ever hear of "barriers to entry?" Ever hear of predatory pricing?

 

You actually believe that businesses are weak?

 

Power gets its money through taxes, donations or stealing. Business can make money from scratch; power is more of a parasite. Money provides checks and balance to power, because money is less dependent and can host the parasites of power. 

 

Well, now you're just saying silly stuff based on an equivalence (and I've proven from previous posts that your command of predicate logic is "weak" at best, so you probably have no idea what I mean by "equivalence") between "power" and "government" with a heavy dose of Reagan/Fox "government is always the personification of evil in all cases no matter what.

 

Why do you hate our Police and Firemen and Military who sacrifice their lives to protect you?

 

Seriously HB, you're really arguing for Anarchy?

 

Or just let the businesses run everything, no need for any government whatsoever?

 

The parasite of power is stronger but he needs a host. Money/business offers checks and balance by regulating the appetite of the parasite. 

 

ONLY business does that? Why pray tell do we even have elections? Why don't we just let the Fortune 500 (or after they all merge, just the Fortune 50) CEO's just run everything.

 

You'd trust them to do this?

 

Goodness gracious you have a really odd idea of Nirvana. Maybe you should move to Somalia: they've got no government there and nothing but rich warlords that run everything. Bet you'd just love it there! :cheer:

 

 

If all the rich people in the world divided up their money among themselves there wouldn't be enough to go around, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

 

As I said, try cable TV or Cell phone service: because the folks in power have decided there's no need for competition, there is none.

Your only choice as a consumer is buy what Comcast or Verizon deem is the ideal bundle, buy from some little guy they haven't gotten around to knocking off yet who can't provide a fraction of the service, or go without.

 

Yes, that's what business does to "force" people into buying what they want you to buy at exorbitant rates.

 

You want to try to start a competitor? Ever hear of "barriers to entry?" Ever hear of predatory pricing?

 

You actually believe that businesses are weak?As I said, try cable TV or Cell phone service: because the folks in power have decided there's no need for competition, there is none.

 

One has a choice to buy or not to buy. Say the Government raises taxes, or adds fees, that you think are  too much, you cannot opt out like with Comcast.

 

Say you did not want the government health care, because the system is too expensive. You can't opt out. The government health care system was more like a mafia protection racket, where one is offered medical protection, whether you need or want it or not. If you fail to comply, with this generous offer, the goons will help you see the light. Business cannot do it this way. 

 

I would prefer being back into a corner where there is an escape; business. The way you deal with business, that does not require government, is for the people to organize a buying groups, so they can get cable at wholesale; demand side pressure. 

 

I would like to see demand side pressure on the government, where the tax payer, gets more of  say as to how their taxes are spent. Senator Warren had this chant about you did not build that, saying business did not build the roads, etc. She is not know for math skills, because the government did not build it either. The taxpayer paid of it. The government was a middleman, like business, unless we assume the government stole the tax money, so now it was theirs. Stealing aside, the tax payer paid for the roads. 

 

I like the idea of each tax payer deciding how their personal tax contribution is spent. At tax time, say you owe $1000 in taxes, you get to ear mark that money. One could be given a pie chart of last years budget, and then a blank chart, that you fill in the $1000. Then the government adds up all the pie charts of all the tax payers, and this is the budget and budge priorities. The government becomes the servant of the people. 

 

Government and business are now both supply side, which means they decide for you, with business having more avenues of escape. Demand side works as well with business or government, with socialist governments tending to be supply side; they decide for you and no escape. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

One has a choice to buy or not to buy. Say the Government raises taxes, or adds fees, that you think are  too much, you cannot opt out like with Comcast.

 

That's because one is a business and the other is a government. What you're willfully refusing to recognize is that not being able to "opt-out" is what government is *for*. It's entire purpose is to define and enforce the laws that all citizens live by.

 

If you're insisting that you should be able to "opt-out" of anything the government does you're just advocating for anarchy. Nothing wrong with that, just pretty, um, inconsistent of you. Conservatives are actually way to the Authoritarian end of the scale who insist on imposing their world-views on everyone else.

 

But no, this is pretty anarchist:

 

Say you did not want the government health care, because the system is too expensive. You can't opt out. The government health care system was more like a mafia protection racket, where one is offered medical protection, whether you need or want it or not. If you fail to comply, with this generous offer, the goons will help you see the light. Business cannot do it this way. 

 

Say you really didn't like that the government lets people with different skin colors live next door to you. Should you be able to opt out of that?

 

Oh, I don't like paying for wars, can I opt out of that?

 

Yah that's anarchy, dear.

 

Conversely, have you ever not paid your Comcast bill because you thought it was too high or you didn't want to support the MSNBC or Rachel Maddow's salary? You want to see Business goons, that's a great way to bring them to your door and destroy your credit rating to boot.

 

I would prefer being back into a corner where there is an escape; business. The way you deal with business, that does not require government, is for the people to organize a buying groups, so they can get cable at wholesale; demand side pressure. 

 

Well, unfortunately, Comcast would crush a buying group like a bug. And there is no wholesale any more, dear. Comcast decided it cut into their profits, so they don't do it and the few smaller companies in markets Comcast can't be bothered to serve all do the same thing and point at Comcast and say "but he does it, so we do too."

 

It's not in the interest of any business to promote competing alternatives, and because they've been allowed to concentrate so much money and power and eliminate any possibility of normal competitive markets, they can do what they want.

 

Used to be Republicans were the trust-busters. Now they're the trust-enablers/enforcers.

 

So really if you're for Business as it's evolved today, you're for eliminating competition, enforcing limited choice, and maintaining artificially high prices because of broken markets.

 

Oh and if you're for that old real competition and efficient markets, well, they don't exist any more because there's no government pressure to maintain them.

 

 

I would like to see demand side pressure on the government, where the tax payer, gets more of  say as to how their taxes are spent. 

 

I know you probably slept through your US Government class in 12th grade, but it's called voting, dear.

 

 

Senator Warren had this chant about you did not build that, saying business did not build the roads, etc. She is not know for math skills, because the government did not build it either. The taxpayer paid of it. The government was a middleman, like business, unless we assume the government stole the tax money, so now it was theirs. Stealing aside, the tax payer paid for the roads. 

 

You, me, our neighbors: we're the government. Unless one is incapable of realizing that "Teh Guvmint" isn't some alien from outer space that came in and took over. 

 

Now Joe Business Owner paid for a tiny bit of the roads, but he also keeps trying to say that simply because he owns a business that he should pay LESS taxes than everyone else.

 

I don't blame him. I guess we'd all like to pay less taxes.

 

Oh but we like our roads. In fact WE built them so we have a RIGHT to use them!

 

But of course we don't want to pay for that pesky maintenance. Too expensive.

 

Now of course we are simply "stealing" from ourselves here. Those taxes are our money and we choose our representatives based on who we think might be good at spending them the way we'd like.

 

So unlike Comcast, who needs to please only their rich shareholders, and doesn't have to listen to us for even a split second (and if they do, they laugh at you after), we actually get to vote the bastards out of government if we don't like what they choose to do with our money.

 

I like the idea of each tax payer deciding how their personal tax contribution is spent. At tax time, say you owe $1000 in taxes, you get to ear mark that money. One could be given a pie chart of last years budget, and then a blank chart, that you fill in the $1000. Then the government adds up all the pie charts of all the tax payers, and this is the budget and budge priorities. The government becomes the servant of the people.

 

We have some interesting discussions around the forums dealing with direct democracy. If it were possible for you to focus on a single topic, you might want to revive one of those threads and we can talk about the pros and cons of this proposal. Yes, dear, there are down-sides to it.

 

 

Government and business are now both supply side, which means they decide for you, with business having more avenues of escape. Demand side works as well with business or government, with socialist governments tending to be supply side; they decide for you and no escape. 

 

You have an odd penchant for trying to use specific terms for things that they were not built to describe. Kind of like those aliens in that Star Trek:TNG episode that spoke a language entirely built on metaphor.

 

I'm sure it's useful to you in someway since you do it all the time, but honestly its just confusing for everyone else.

 

 

Shaka, when the walls fell, :phones:

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

While watching the two of you duke it out is fun, I'm not sure what this has to do with predictions of the future.

[Buffy]

While watching the two of you duke it out is fun, I'm not sure what this has to do with predictions of the future.

 

It doesn't and I'm about to split this off into yet another Silly Claims forum thread.... :P

 

 

I wasted time, and now doth time waste me, :phones:

Buffy

[HydrogenBond]

A more practical world government, that is not perfect, would be led by the first world countries. Only these countries have the logistics and the where with all to advance the rest. You can't have third world countries and dictators, also leading, since they do not understand first world ways, and will try to downgrade the first world, into something they can understand. 

 

For example, when third world immigrants come to America, those who maintain the diversity of their culture and language, and live in pockets in America, lose out on the full level of opportunity that is  afforded to those who can fully assimilate. The blacks cluster and lose out.

 

If one never leaves their third world country, in their mind, they never really leave the third world, even though living in the first world. On the other hand, the immigrants who try to assimilate to the first world, may find this harder at first, but it pays off in the end. They can still maintain their cultural identity as desert, but use the first world as their meat and potatoes. 

 

Liberalism is actually more like a second world political culture. This is evident in the thinking that maintaining third world diversity, allows all possible opportunities. They will then depend on government to offset lost opportunity; second world socialism. They fear business since this is a key part of all first world countries. China and US have two different forms of government. What make them both first world are their economies not governments. 

 

The liberal vision of a world government is everyone is a happy peasant; second world average, with third world dictators as important as first world leaders. This might work with a second world political POV.

 

A first world, world, is where there is opportunity to advance in all ways based on personal ability. Government cannot offer this.  One can't have the servant leading the owner, or else the servant will live large at the expense of the owner; deficits. Government is good up to second world order, but after that it becomes more of a drag and waste.

 

If you look at the food supply in America, Government could not allow the same variety at the same cheap price everywhere in America. This first world food chain is free market. If you were happy with a second world food chain, then government would be the answer. The servant is not the same as the owner, and thinks smaller and  more self serving. 

Edited April 13, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Deepwater6]

HB, That's a fairly accurate description of the ways things are and the way they will probably stay for a long time. But hundreds and hundreds of years from now if hunger and poverty could somehow be eliminated, if we can go off planet and start a whole new branches of humans on exo-planets some of that, if not all that may change. Yes it is pie in the sky thinking, but so was a space shuttle to humans in say the year 1900.

 

Sure these colonies will start with the parent planets form of government, but will soon take on its own shape. Much like the original colonies here in the US did against the British. If food, opulence, and money could no longer be held over the heads of everyone, will we still have this same societal structure? Do you think human governments will be like this until the last man or women exists in this universe?

 

I guess I'm an optimist, but with compounding advances in technology moving us forward in everything from medicine to space travel, I see a human race that can be better than that. Of course we will still need societal structure in some form, crimes may still occur, but by then doctors will probably know how to reprogram the brain so they won't have to spend time getting rehabilitated in our prison systems? Yes, I like to look at the upside of things, but hey, why not? We can't be locked into the sins of our past forever, the future universe is what make of it and I'll take mine with a lot of icing. :smile:

[HydrogenBond]

The way you make the future brighter is not through herd control by big government. It will be done by allowing each person to be  a self contained, productive, happy, and a cooperative part of the whole.

 

The problem with herd control, such as socialism, is humans have willpower and choice, so no one size fits all approach, will work for all. The only way to make this work is to dumb down culture and the  herd, so choices are narrowed due to lack of imagination, ingenuity and opportunity. This is why socialism sees the need to dumb down business; takes away free choice. If we extrapolate this, all the way to brain dead humans, we could get a type of human herd who will obey even the narrow edicts of morons. But limiting the herd to the capacities of leaders, causes culture to lose so much in terms of its human potential. 

 

The 180 degree other way is based on allowing citizens endless choice and willpower. This makes it impossible for one size fits all. This is not conducive to central government control even with geniuses in charge. The type of control needed is based on individual self control; self awareness analogous to the religious concepts of a conscience and character. If you always kept in mind, love your neighbor and play fair,  but don't place limit on your imagination and choices, all could be happy, full and cooperative humans. 

 

This was the secret to the success of early America. America was sort of chaotic with new people from different cultures being added each day, new inventions, opportunities and freedoms on the frontier,  compared to anything that came before it. If we use any model of central control this should have been chaos and anarchy, yet it all seemed to work as a team. This was because character and conscience, played the role of individual self awareness regulator, in the larger scheme of controlled chaos. 

 

Picture this image. We have  a busy house with a lot of children and relatives all having a holiday party. The music is loud, the children are running and laughing chasing the dog, with the table teetering, the men are drinking and arguing politics, yelling at each other, the women are competing in the kitchen, with the mother in law, on their daughter in law's back. Yet it was a successful day of controlled chaos; family of man. This family chaos or choice, is not about conformity to one size fits all, but freedom for all, bound by an internal guides; love and family. This was America. 

 

The loss of religion in America, which teaches character and conscience, cause the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater, so character and conscience are less binding. This caused the controlled chaos  of freedom to break down, requiring more centralize control; atheism.

 

Liberals tend to sense centralized control as the final steady state for humans, because they do not understand the concepts of character and conscience and how central control placed in the souls of men and women is the true central control for freedom. They look to the surface and see big government as a surface projection, of what they themselves are capable of, if they learn the ways of character and conscience. 

[HydrogenBond]

The problem with all the socialist utopian visions, are these do not reflect the path of natural reality. The loss of natural makes these unstable. The bottom line is, we can provide equal opportunity for all, but we can't dictate equal results for all. 

 

All the deer in the woods will have the same opportunity in those woods. No deer is exclude from going here or there. But some of the deer are better at foraging than others, and will eat more. It is natural to have difference results, given the same external opportunity. If we try to force equal results for all, one creates unconscious potential, due to this being unnatural. This comes up in destructive ways, like war and conflict to release the potential; return to nature. 

 

Natural selection provides all within a species, the same environment. It is designed so there will be differences in outcome, with these differences the basis for the future. Socialism tries an unnatural approach; force equal results. This approach is less for the people, but more needed to allow morons and thieves to lead. 

 

If you look in North Korea, the people are poor and deprived of using their full potential. They are genetically the same as south Korea. This may appear to be fair, in some weird way, but this is actually needed to prop up their leader. It is based on the old saying, if you are overweight and wish to look skinny, hang with fat people. If he allowed the full potential of his people, natural selection would make it hard of him to stay in power. In South Korea, even the poor are better off than the average person in the north ,with the south government more sophisticated; floor is higher. 

 

In America, the social decline and dumbing down is connected to the liberal philosophy of equality meaning equal results. This is supported with extra resources. Morality is harder to do, than immorality. Immorality requires less will power. To get equal results means the need for relative morality, since this is easier. But this unnatural selection, requires a lot more resources. If everyone is a winner then you need to buy 30 trophies instead of 1.

 

I was listening to talk radio and they were talking about a liberal scholar who thought it was unfair that some parents read to their children, since not all children have parents who will do this. His solution, for fairness, was not to get the lazy parents to rise up to the occasion, but to shame the motivated parents to dumb down. 

 

A dumber populous is better suited to morons in leadership, who can appear to be smarter than they are if the floor is made low enough. If you have morons in leadership, but in proportion to the populous, the culture will continue to decline due to morons equal poor judgements.  

 

The open system or natural culture is the opposite. It provides open access to all, but assumes difference in outcome. This unleashes the capacity in their people, requiring better and better leaders. They then, have the capacity to take the culture higher and higher.