The Definition of a Moon-Bat

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]knewsom wrote:

Perhaps people have a mistaken notion that socialists all expect to be handed things from the government - that’s a mistake. Socialists expect basic human needs to be met, and the single most effective way to do so for every member of the population is through government.[/quote]

Maybe I’m missing something, but how is having ‘basic needs met by the government’ different than ‘being handed things from the government’?

Also, given our government’s ability to ensure that every home has air conditioning and a VCR but not necessarily healthcare, you may want to reconsider the ‘effective’ and/or ‘basic needs’ comment.

Maybe with an ideal government you’re right, but you put a lot more faith in mankind’s ability to acquire(d) that than I do. I agree that total anarchy wouldn’t necessarily be a good thing, but (I think you’ll agree.) we could definitely use some trimming.

22

[quote]knewsom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Stalin and Mao were a couple of lefties.

Nothing like a good cultural revolution.

Well, when you talk about communism, it’s almost to the point where it’s gone full circle from radical leftism to ultra-conservativism. I’m not even sure you could define Stalin or Mao as leftists anymore due to their totalitarian practices. We need not forget that post-cultural revolution, China became EXTREMELY conservative regarding its communist culture.[/quote]

What do you think “left” means?

“Left” does not exclude totalitarianism.

Perhaps you are thinking of classical liberalism.

Lefties want change, and may even give lip service to equality… far-left means that if people aren’t equal, we’ll force them to be.

23

Liberalism, as defined today, is simply a prelude to fascism/communism. The far left is therefore simply taking liberalism to its logical conclusions.

Hitler took socialism to its logical conclusion. Stalin took communism to its logical conclusion.

Every liberal must therefore eventually become totalitarian, for the simple reason that people are INDIVIDUALS. “What if I don’t want to contribute to Katrina victims?” You will be forced to do so. “What if I choose to use steroids?” You will be forced to not use steroids, with fines and imprisonment.

Liberalism does not trust individuals to decide things for themselves. They must therefore resort to force — totalitarianism.

HH

24

[quote]lucasa wrote:
knewsom wrote:

Perhaps people have a mistaken notion that socialists all expect to be handed things from the government - that’s a mistake. Socialists expect basic human needs to be met, and the single most effective way to do so for every member of the population is through government.

Maybe I’m missing something, but how is having ‘basic needs met by the government’ different than ‘being handed things from the government’?
[/quote]

If a society can afford it, it should give a minimum income to its have-nots and otherwise unable citizens. That’s how I understand socialism. Inevitably there is going to be persons who manage to take advantage of it, but there is always loss in every system.

25

[quote]karva wrote:
lucasa wrote:
knewsom wrote:

Perhaps people have a mistaken notion that socialists all expect to be handed things from the government - that’s a mistake. Socialists expect basic human needs to be met, and the single most effective way to do so for every member of the population is through government.

Maybe I’m missing something, but how is having ‘basic needs met by the government’ different than ‘being handed things from the government’?

If a society can afford it, it should give a minimum income to its have-nots and otherwise unable citizens. That’s how I understand socialism. Inevitably there is going to be persons who manage to take advantage of it, but there is always loss in every system. [/quote]

Since there really is no such a thing as ‘Society’, it being a name for a collection of individuals, what if I don’t want to contribute, to give a ‘minimum income’ to anyone? Will I be forced?

HH

26

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
karva wrote:
lucasa wrote:
knewsom wrote:

Perhaps people have a mistaken notion that socialists all expect to be handed things from the government - that’s a mistake. Socialists expect basic human needs to be met, and the single most effective way to do so for every member of the population is through government.

Maybe I’m missing something, but how is having ‘basic needs met by the government’ different than ‘being handed things from the government’?

If a society can afford it, it should give a minimum income to its have-nots and otherwise unable citizens. That’s how I understand socialism. Inevitably there is going to be persons who manage to take advantage of it, but there is always loss in every system.

Since there really is no such a thing as ‘Society’, it being a name for a collection of individuals, what if I don’t want to contribute, to give a ‘minimum income’ to anyone? Will I be forced?

HH

[/quote]

Yes, I think so, you will be forced. You already are forced to do a multitude of things.

27

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Every liberal must therefore eventually become totalitarian, for the simple reason that people are INDIVIDUALS. “What if I don’t want to contribute to Katrina victims?” You will be forced to do so. “What if I choose to use steroids?” You will be forced to not use steroids, with fines and imprisonment.
[/quote]

I don’t believe this one bit. The greatest virtue to any liberal society is the idea of live and let live. A true liberal would not force one to do anything that one doesn’t want to do. It is about “individual” freedom; but also protecting freedoms for those not “strong” enough to do it on their own.

I think perhaps this is where you are getting your wires twisted. In the past protecting the weak meant enforcing rules. This was taken to extremes in many instances which can be witnessed in history.

Historically it was about power. Today we have a different idea about power attributed to lessons learned in the past. That lesson is–don’t grant any one entity too much power. Liberals these days know that individual freedom does not mean anything if it has to be shoved down the masses’ throats to be benefited by it.

The biggest problem is our current mode of thinking. Conservatives are afraid that liberals will take away individual freedoms to protect the masses at their expense; Liberals are afraid that conservatives will only protect those already in power and not the masses. How do we reconcile these two ideas?

28

[quote]knewsom wrote:

I’m not even sure you could define Stalin or Mao as leftists anymore due to their totalitarian practices.[/quote]

Huh? Leftism (of the radical sort) and totalitarianism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are quite comfortable with one another.

29

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Huh? Leftism (of the radical sort) and totalitarianism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are quite comfortable with one another.[/quote]

I think he’s referring to the fact that these guys rose under the flag of leftyism, but in fact implemented something else… though they kept using the same name in a form of Orwellian doublespeak.

30

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think he’s referring to the fact that these guys rose under the flag of leftyism, but in fact implemented something else… though they kept using the same name in a form of Orwellian doublespeak.[/quote]

Orwell was talking about the left.

He never said “those damned righties will co-opt the message of the left and corrupt it.”

31

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Orwell was talking about the left.

He never said “those damned righties will co-opt the message of the left and corrupt it.”[/quote]

The left don’t have a monopoly on doublespeak…

32

Orwell was once a supporter of communism, and then turned very anti-communist. His popular writings are actually about communism. 1984 was only named that because the publisher refused to let him name it 1948.

China ran an interesting little experiment in socialism. They decided that every single Chinese person was to receive the exact same wage regardless of what job they do, or even if they were working. A third of the population quit their jobs when these rules were implemented.

Socialism seems like a good idea because some people need help, and socialism provides this help. What is missed is a little psychology. You are in effect taking away one form of motivation. Pain.

People are motivated by pain and pleasure, and socialism actually causes the pain to be lessened, and the same for pleasure. You are in effect rewarding people who work less and punishing people who work harder, or more.

By providing the lower income people more money, and taking it from the higher income people, you are effectively doing just that.

And I used to know a few people on Welfare in the late 80’s. These people knew that if they got jobs and increased their income, they would lose benefits equal to, and sometimes greater then their increase in income.

Here is a simple way to understand this. Anyone remember their teenage years? Anyone remember the kids who were given cars from their parents, and the kids who worked and bought their own cars? Who treated their cars better? Why?

33

If you had to pick one of the major ‘isms’ to live under, from the past 200 years of history (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism,…), which would you choose?

Realize that these systems have principles that are at odds with one another. They therefore should not be ‘mixed’ or the ‘bad money will drive the good money out of circulation’, so to speak.

H2

34

[quote]vroom wrote:

I think he’s referring to the fact that these guys rose under the flag of leftyism, but in fact implemented something else… though they kept using the same name in a form of Orwellian doublespeak.[/quote]

I am not sure if that was his point or not, but it is completely erroneous if it was. Installing a totalitarian regime was very much a part of the game plan for those waving the flag of leftyism - in other words, it did’t morph into something else because it became totalitarian. What these regimes became was not ‘something else’ other than leftyism.

35

[quote]karva wrote:
If a society can afford it, it should give a minimum income to its have-nots and otherwise unable citizens. That’s how I understand socialism. Inevitably there is going to be persons who manage to take advantage of it, but there is always loss in every system.

Since there really is no such a thing as ‘Society’, it being a name for a collection of individuals, what if I don’t want to contribute, to give a ‘minimum income’ to anyone? Will I be forced?

HH

Yes, I think so, you will be forced. You already are forced to do a multitude of things.[/quote]

Does that mean that the people who produce are slaves of those who produce nothing?

HH

36

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Every liberal must therefore eventually become totalitarian, for the simple reason that people are INDIVIDUALS. “What if I don’t want to contribute to Katrina victims?” You will be forced to do so. “What if I choose to use steroids?” You will be forced to not use steroids, with fines and imprisonment.

I don’t believe this one bit. The greatest virtue to any liberal society is the idea of live and let live. A true liberal would not force one to do anything that one doesn’t want to do. It is about “individual” freedom; but also protecting freedoms for those not “strong” enough to do it on their own.

I think perhaps this is where you are getting your wires twisted. [/quote]

The history of liberalism belies everything you’ve written. Since liberal philosophy is based upon the premise of unselfishness, this means that some selves exist to serve the needs of other selves. To be moral is to put the needs of society above one’s own. To put your own needs first, as a rational being, is therefore regarded as immoral and selfish. Since your life is a supreme value to you, this comes into conflict with ‘society’.

In other words, those who don’t accept the liberal philosophy simply refuse to go along. Since this is regarded as immoral, ‘society’ therefore feels free to use force to gain compliance. Hence the descent into Fascism/Communism.

Hitler, for ex, was a brilliant man. He knew that there was really no such thing as ‘society’. He knew he could, however, use the moral premise behind liberalism (the good of the many, in this case, the Aryans) to implement his ideas. One of the most widely used slogans of the Nazis was: “Community before Self”. If certain individuals refuse to comply (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals,…), well so much the worse for them.

The whole shabby secret of liberalism is this moral cannibalism — that one man exists to serve another man. Well, what if I refuse to go along? Guess its the Gulag or Concentration Camp for me, eh?

HH

37

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
karva wrote:
If a society can afford it, it should give a minimum income to its have-nots and otherwise unable citizens. That’s how I understand socialism. Inevitably there is going to be persons who manage to take advantage of it, but there is always loss in every system.

Since there really is no such a thing as ‘Society’, it being a name for a collection of individuals, what if I don’t want to contribute, to give a ‘minimum income’ to anyone? Will I be forced?

HH

Yes, I think so, you will be forced. You already are forced to do a multitude of things.

Does that mean that the people who produce are slaves of those who produce nothing?

HH[/quote]

No. A slave can’t be better-off than his master. And slaves don’t have income.

38

[quote]The Mage wrote:
A bunch of historical crap that has no bearing on anything today.
[/quote]

Zzzzzz.

39

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I am not sure if that was his point or not, but it is completely erroneous if it was. Installing a totalitarian regime was very much a part of the game plan for those waving the flag of leftyism - in other words, it did’t morph into something else because it became totalitarian. What these regimes became was not ‘something else’ other than leftyism.[/quote]

No, they never did implement it. They used the “promise” of it to create their movement, and then they turned around and became something else.

It’s a neat trick, continuing to equate the two…

Finally, it doesn’t fucking matter what Orwell was referring to, as I was referring to the concept of Doublespeak, fucking idiots.

40

[quote]vroom wrote:

No, they never did implement it. They used the “promise” of it to create their movement, and then they turned around and became something else.

It’s a neat trick, continuing to equate the two…[/quote]

Not following - “they” never implemented it? What is “it”?

From the French Revolution to 20th century Communism, the Left has built totalitarian regimes.

Neither myself nor Nephorm was getting nasty with you in this discussion. Is it possible any more for you to have a humane discussion about anything? The moment someone disagrees with you, you respond like a hypersensitive, arrogant prick.

No one here thinks you are as smart as you obviously think you are, so every now and again, one of us may offer a contrary opinion to your own. If you can’t do any better than throwing a tantrum when that happens, find a different hobby.