Which 'one True God?'

August1991 · March 13, 2004

That's a contradiction in terms. The bigger and more dominant a thing becomes the more inefficient it becomes. Efficiency is increased when power has a broad base and individuals make more decisions. That's why free market economies invariably pull far ahead of planned economies. Furthermore, you forgot the iron law of human history: power kills.

There are many costs in dealing (co-operating) through markets. For one, people have to figure out what all those numbers mean exactly. Second, the lawyers have to explain exactly what you're buying, and what you're giving up - and these are often things in the future. There are many non-market ways to co-operate, and sometimes, the bigger the better. Microsoft seems pretty good, but then so did IBM. But, Hugo, I get your point.

"Power kills?" WTF?

The fallacy of socialism is not a matter of opinion but of fact and therefore the theory is indefensible.

What is socialism? Honestly, I don't know.

If it means stealing from rich people to give to poor people, then I'm in favour with certain conditions attached. If it means the State should organize certain activities in a society, then I'm in favour but with certain conditions too. On balance, I consider myself "left wing" - socialist, I guess.

theloniusfleabag · March 13, 2004

Dear Hugo,

The bigger and more dominant a thing becomes the more inefficient it becomes.

Only when humans control it.

Furthermore, you forgot the iron law of human history: power kills.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, yet what is the point of competition if not to win?

The fallacy of socialism is not a matter of opinion but of fact and therefore the theory is indefensible.

nonsense. Social equality is a fact (while I disagree on some case-bycase examples) and you and I derive direct benefit from it. It is the basis of law, not 'free enterprise', which is "unobtainable 'responsible anarchy', that you seem to espuse as the 'law of the jungle'. Both can rule, but I maintain that mankind could be above base drives.

Pellaken · March 13, 2004

how did this become about socalisim?

Hugo · March 13, 2004

"Power kills?" WTF?

When you concentrate power people die. The more concentrated power is, the more a regime will murder. The greatest massacres and human rights violations have all been committed by totalitarian states, who have also started the biggest wars. This is an iron law of human history and is inescapable. When you realise this, you come to realise the value of democracy, pluralism and dispersion of power. It saves lives.

What is socialism? Honestly, I don't know.

It would take a long time to answer that question. I wouldn't label myself a socialist without knowing what it is, especially when socialists have been responsible for the murder of 110,000,000 people in this century.

Both can rule, but I maintain that mankind could be above base drives.

Could but never will. Men are not angels. This is one of the key flaws in socialism, along with:

a) denial of the existence of free will and a view of human beings as unthinking, robotic economic agents

consequent view of history, social evolution and all human affairs as exclusively economic in nature

c) the idea that any flaw in a system means that that system must be destroyed, not repaired

d) the endorsement of violence and murder as instruments of state power (more Marxist, but socialism is derived from Marx)

"Social equality is a fact" is a meaningless statement. It's a fact that there's a pen on my desk too. Equality cannot be found, it must be created and the basic tenet of socialism is to impose unjust economic equality through force and coersion while denying social, political or legal equality to anyone. That's why the destruction of freedom is necessary to impose socialism. The override of natural laws and tendencies organic to man requires massive control, certainly not of the kind that would permit any kind of freedom in thought or action.

theloniusfleabag · March 27, 2004

Dear Hugo,

The override of natural laws and tendencies organic to man requires massive control,

As I have said before, that conquest must come from, and will be, within the individual.

When you realise this, you come to realise the value of democracy, pluralism and dispersion of power. It saves lives.

Dispersion of power is anathema to the US. It's present goal is to solidify it, to be like colonial England, where all profits are governed by, and fed back to, the powerful.

Pellaken Posted on Mar 13 2004, 05:57 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how did this become about socalisim?

Since Hugo has chosen between God and Man.

Hugo · March 27, 2004

As I have said before, that conquest must come from, and will be, within the individual.

It never will. Sooner or later, socialists are going to have to face up to what religion has realised for thousands of years: humans are flawed, always have been, and always, always will be. You can design a system around their imperfections, like capitalism, or you can design a system that ignores them, like socialism, which is why that system never works.

Dispersion of power is anathema to the US. It's present goal is to solidify it, to be like colonial England, where all profits are governed by, and fed back to, the powerful.

Do you have any evidence? I have plenty of examples of political infighting, governments against corporations, corporations against governments, religious groups against both. There is no "powerful" in America. They are divided. Corporations are in constant competition, Republicans and Democrats are mutually exclusive, and the gay-rights groups and the Catholic Church are constantly at loggerheads. This is what I mean by dispersion of power, in America, no one individual or united group can gain any large measure of power. There are so many checks and balances and the very system is designed to produce opposition to power at every step.

Ah, and since you mention the profit motive, perhaps I'll give you a few examples of the American system ignoring profit for other ideals. 1980, $100bn windfall profit tax from oil companies. Bethlehem Steel driven out of business by environmental concerns. Clinton and Bush administrations refusing to trade with Iraq. Department of Justice fighting Microsoft.

You see? Once again, you don't put up your own examples because your points are false.

Since Hugo has chosen between God and Man.

Explain how.

willy · March 27, 2004

"This is what I mean by dispersion of power, in America, no one individual or united group can gain any large measure of power."

Hugo, you state this as if it is inherently good. Many examples can be found where competing interests battle it out, but this system will propagate the status quo or the wrong side may win. Consensus builds a united voice, but middle of the road results. Voting can be divisive and can leave many groups disenfranchised. Competing interests don't ensure direction or progress. This competition can be regressive.

Where is the metaphysic here? If God designed the world, then the world has order. The world does give us competing interests as balance but with design there is also a way it should be. One side should win for it to work better. Where does the value of the outcome, work into your explanation? If it doesn’t matter which way it goes why would we need to compete?

Hugo · March 28, 2004

Hugo, you state this as if it is inherently good. Many examples can be found where competing interests battle it out, but this system will propagate the status quo or the wrong side may win.

But no side "wins" completely, and not for any long period of time, so if the wrong side wins, it does not mean calamity.

When we trust to pluralism and the wisdom of the common man, we win. We get democracy, trial by jury, liberty and freedom. When we stop trusting the common man and instead trust to experts to make decisions for us, we get tyranny, death and misery.

Since God does not make his wishes clear, man is the highest agent of his own destiny. Therefore it is better to allow all men a say in that destiny rather than to restrict that say to only a few.

Where does the value of the outcome, work into your explanation?

Because in practice the competition and pluralism produces the best outcome. Theories are all very well, but I'm interested in what happens when you apply them. If the theory doesn't work when applied empirically, as socialism doesn't, as non-elected government doesn't, then that means the theory is wrong, no matter how hard that may be to accept.

willy · March 29, 2004

"But no side "wins" completely, and not for any long period of time, so if the wrong side wins, it does not mean calamity."

"When we trust to pluralism and the wisdom of the common man, we win. We get democracy, trial by jury, liberty and freedom."

Man has no common wisdom, and the world is full of calamity. We have poverty, drugs, rape, murder, slavery, all operating in Canada and the US. Democracy and the right to liberty have not eliminated this horrible human condition. Some of us may choose to live in denial but pain and suffering are real. Wealth does not fix this condition either or the Betty Ford Clinic would go out of business.

What is freedom? Are we free from social constraints, our abilities, social status, education, geographic limitations, other people, or crime?

So when I talk about the value of outcomes, it is not a theory but an acknowledgement of our true state of being. Pluralism negotiates this condition but does not create a utopian dream.

I have stated in other posts that I am a Christian, and this leaves me with a clear path for change and it is not in people to accomplish this. God makes the change. If you apply the gospel to your life it will change you. I don't intend to say that this is a legislation thing. (Governments are not the answer)

Pluralism does allow for groups to express and live faith based lives in Canada. Based on that pluralism one can have a good end. I look at France and the recent rulings not to allow any public displays of religious symbols; I soon realize that pluralism also can do nothing to protect what is good.

Hugo · March 29, 2004

Man has no common wisdom, and the world is full of calamity. We have poverty, drugs, rape, murder, slavery, all operating in Canada and the US.

All true, and all are conditions magnified a million times outside Canada and the US. But man does have common wisdom. This is why democracy, juries, free public discourse and so on are of benefit to us. If man had no wisdom a democracy would be no better than a tyranny.

Pluralism negotiates this condition but does not create a utopian dream.

You can never come close to the utopian dream. For one thing, what that dream is varies with whom you ask. Karl Marx's vision of utopia is my vision of hell. Pluralism is a practical system of compromise. Men are not angels and you cannot achieve paradise on earth, and since God has not ushered Man back into the Garden of Eden we have to make to with what we have. Democratic capitalism is not a perfect system, although that's meaningless since there cannot be a perfect system, but it's the best so far.

Faith is important on a personal level but when you try to apply it to a whole culture you just end up with another tyranny, far from religious vision. The medieval Church had very little to do with God and a lot to do with wealth and power. To preserve pure religious tenets you have to hurt religion a little.

theloniusfleabag · April 1, 2004

Dear Hugo,

The medieval Church had very little to do with God and a lot to do with wealth and power. To preserve pure religious tenets you have to hurt religion a little.

Amen to that. Mind you, what the US espouss through it's actions today have very little to do with god, democracy and freedom, but are all to do with wealth and power.

To enable freedom and democracy, we are going to have to hurt the US a little bit.

I believe you are confusing Karl Marx's vision and Vladimir Lenin's vision of 'Communism' with modern day hybrid socialism. Having the state collect taxes to properly run (which seems to be, I'll agree, a most difficult proposition) schools, roads and hospitals, hardly can be equated to the tyrannical deaths of one hundred plus million people. Lenin and Stalin bastardized Marx every bit as much as what Martha Stewart and the Menedez brothers have done to the values held by George Washington.

Hugo · April 1, 2004

Lenin and Stalin bastardized Marx

This is a gross misconception right here. It's not your fault as it seems to be received wisdom these days, despite the fact that it isn't historically accurate.

Lenin and Stalin did not bastardize anything. Their tyranny was perfectly in keeping with Marxist vision. In fact, they actually put a kind face on Marx and their version of Communism was more humane than Marxism. How? Well, they still allowed the existence of private property, which Marx did not. He would have destroyed it by forcible confiscation. Lenin and Stalin also allowed women to keep their rights, whereas Marx believed women were the property of the state and that no woman should have the right to refuse sex to a proletarian. Lenin and Stalin also preserved the traditional family, whereas Marx wanted it destroyed and for children to be collectively raised by the state. Fatherhood would have ceased to exist since, by the condition above, nobody could be certain who had sired whom anyway.

Let's not pretend that Marxism is a wonderful vision that was abused by historical figures. Marxism is evil to the core. It preaches and prescribes violence, tyranny, and human rights abuse, and it decries liberty and equality of opportunity every bit as much as Nazism, and like Nazism, it is based on invalid theories and ignorance of history, and facts are twisted to fit the theory rather than vice-versa.

August1991 · April 2, 2004

Let's not pretend that Marxism is a wonderful vision that was abused by historical figures. Marxism is evil to the core.

Evil?

I think Marxist theory is just wrong. It's like the theory that the earth is flat.

Now, can you blame the theory for murder? Isn't that like blaming the Beatles for the murders committed by Charles Manson?

Hugo · April 2, 2004

Evil? I think Marxist theory is just wrong. It's like the theory that the earth is flat.

This doesn't actually answer anything in my post. You did not dispute the fact that Marxism prescribes massive and ongoing human rights abuse, but yet you expect me to accept that it is not evil, just wrong.

2+2=5 is wrong. Calling for mass murder is evil.

August1991 · April 2, 2004

The last thing I would like to do is get into a discussion about the arcane details of Marxism. ("Is the world flat like a pancake or flat like a floor tile?")

But, here goes (briefly). I don't think Karl Marx advocated mass murder. It seems to me there was something about the expropriated expropriating the expropriators. (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) Expropriating and murder are not the same thing.

God knows what Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung or Kim Il Sung did later with Marx's theories.

My point is this: I disagree with the idea that Marxism is evil because it killed people, or that the State is bad because it has killed so many people.

Why do I disagree? Because it somehow absolves the individuals who did the killing.

In Rwanda, 10,000 people were killed every day for three months. The State didn't do it, nor Religion, nor Marxism. People did it. The same was true of Nazi Germany. And Stalinist Russia.

To say Marxism or the State kills people denies the more important question of how is it that individuals could be led to commit such evil?

Are there so many psychopaths among us? Are they only held in check by the fear of prison or worse?

theloniusfleabag · April 2, 2004

Dear August1991,

Are there so many psychopaths among us? Are they only held in check by the fear of prison or worse?

Sadly, it is for the most part true.

University studies have shown that well over 50% of test subjects are willing to 'torture' fellow test subjects, with electric shocks, often far beyond their own moral limits in an environment geared towards absolute obedience.

To Dear Hugo:

Marx was merely an example of extreme taxation, not of system of law. I believe this is where you err.

There are but 4 choices.

1.Totalitarianism

2.Democracy

3.Free Enterprise

4.Marxism(to qualify, 100%taxation)

Humans can only mix two of these four things to come up with a system of societal existence. Obviously, only 1 or 2 can be mixed with 3 or 4.

The world today exists, in one form or another, obeying the laws of a mixture of all these things, to varying degrees.

In this mixture, only 2 and 4, or 1 and 3 can be the 'theoretical end result' if equality is used as the 'judgement factor'.

Hugo · April 2, 2004

I don't think Karl Marx advocated mass murder. It seems to me there was something about the expropriated expropriating the expropriators.

I would suggest that you need to read Marx.

Are there so many psychopaths among us? Are they only held in check by the fear of prison or worse?

Yes, pretty much. The state in this instance gives legitimacy for murder and excuses it. It also dehumanises it's enemies to make the slaughter easier.

The state is an institution and exists in it's own right. A state can survive the death of an emperor or dictator and it can survive if practically every state servant is murdered, and their murderers murdered, as Stalin discovered. The state can grant legitimacy to the actions of the people involved or it can not. Most Nazis on trial at Nuremberg claimed that they were just following orders. Perhaps the state consists of individuals, but to those individuals it doesn't seem that way. What they perceive is a monolithic entity that gives out orders.

Marx was merely an example of extreme taxation, not of system of law.

This is not true. Marxism is not just economic theory, it is political theory and Marx himself said so. Dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx politicizes economics,joining the economy and the polity, and this is his first mistake.

August1991 · April 2, 2004

The state can grant legitimacy to the actions of the people involved or it can not.

Who grants legitimacy?

Most Nazis on trial at Nuremberg claimed that they were just following orders.

Have you never thought that these famous confessions might have been self-serving?

Perhaps the state consists of individuals, but to those individuals it doesn't seem that way.

WTF? Then how does it seem to them?

What they perceive is a monolithic entity that gives out orders.

Is this discussion about perception only? In reality, who gives out the orders?

The State is a contrivance of individuals - any discussion must make explicit the motivations of the individuals.

It seems strange (anthropomorphic?) to view the State as an "entity" - and then view this entity as behaving in some predictable way, removed from individuals.

Churchill described India as a geographic term, like the equator. I would do the same for the State.

Hugo · April 2, 2004

Then why did you start a thread entitled "state or religion - which is worse?"

If you truly believed what you are saying, you would have started a thread called "individuals or individuals - which are worse?"

You, too, know that religions, states and other institutions become entities in their own right, in much the same way as your body is an entity in its own right despite the fact that it is actually a collection of a few billion cells. Your general pattern clearly shows this despite a couple of sentences you have written denying it.

August1991 · April 3, 2004

Then why did you start a thread entitled "state or religion - which is worse?"
If you truly believed what you are saying, you would have started a thread called "individuals or individuals - which are worse?"

You, too, know that religions, states and other institutions become entities in their own right, in much the same way as your body is an entity in its own right despite the fact that it is actually a collection of a few billion cells. Your general pattern clearly shows this despite a couple of sentences you have written denying it.

I'll quote you wholly, Hugo - because I in part thought as you after my post.

1) Religion and the State (and Markets, and the Family, corporations and business, friendship, gangs, neighbours, unions...) all involve different ways to organize our relations as individuals. Their differences are interesting.

As organizations go, the State strikes me on occasion as something like the Mafia. Religion strikes me as the State - with the ability to establish relationships for eternity. If people believe that this is for all time, they might do terrible deeds. That's why I was inclined to believe Religion is worse than Politics.

But my main point was that whatever the "institution", one should never ignore how individuals create, use and alter the "institution".

2) Cells, entity, human body, conciousness, Gaia. The only conciousness that I am aware of is me. I understand that my body uses many independent cells that live symbiotically to support a brain that gives me conciousness. Without some of those cells, I would cease to have conciousness - or would I?

Now, does the earth have conciousness? I dunno.

Is the State an entity with a special life of its own? Listen, the Nazi regime, and the Soviet Union, were not an entity or any kind of special life. A bunch of mafia thugs frightened other people and ran an extortion racket. Politburo? Imagine the Hell's got control of a country.

theloniusfleabag · April 3, 2004

Dear August1991,

I am incline to agree with Hugo that a 'Stste', especially a totalitarion one, becomes an entity. I believe it has to do with service. Does it serve you or do you serve it?

A good gov't, entity or program should serve the people. A totalitarian one has it the other way around.

In Canada, we have a system of high taxation, (leaning left toward Marx) but an ever lessening return on our investment.

August1991 · April 4, 2004

I am incline to agree with Hugo that a 'Stste', especially a totalitarion one, becomes an entity. I believe it has to do with service. Does it serve you or do you serve it?

Call the State an "entity" or an "institution" if you want, but never forget that individuals decide.

Canada does not trade with the United States. Individual Canadians trade with individual Americans using sophisticated entites and relations.

willy · April 4, 2004

August1991,

What you state is fact but a phenomenon happens when individuals operate in organizations.

I lecture on ethics and as part of the course we use case studies that students have to take different roles in an organization.

I set up a dilemma with personal ethics and organizational self interest. It never seizes to surprise me how many times students remove themselves, even in a case study from the decisions they make for the organization.

Ideally individuals would own the role they play but they don't. I hope when individuals are confronted with the responsibility of thier actions they may operate more ethically, but I doubt it.

August1991 · April 4, 2004

I set up a dilemma with personal ethics and organizational self interest. It never seizes to surprise me how many times students remove themselves, even in a case study from the decisions they make for the organization.

What an individual will do in public facing a hypothetical dilemma has virtually no bearing on what the same individual will do in private when faced with a real choice directly concerning their welfare.

In the hypothetical classroom setting, I suspect a person will do whatever the teacher would like the person to do - or whatever would look cool to the other students.

Nevertheless, I get your point Willy. You imply people seem to decide on behalf of the organization. Well, first I suppose you mean that people decide according to their personal interpretation of the organization's interests. But second, we are a social species - that is, we instinctively understand the benefit of cooperation. Organizations help us to cooperate by providing us with a "reputation". Now, what reputation furthers best one's interests?

These are just some of my thoughts.

A great fallacy of all system designers is to pretend there is something called "organization" that has a life of its own - independent of the individuals who comprise the system. Most measures designed to fix Canada's health system are examples of this fallacy.

theloniusfleabag · April 11, 2004

Dear August1991,

A great fallacy of all system designers is to pretend there is something called "organization" that has a life of its own - independent of the individuals who comprise the system

Organizations like this do exist. They dictate individual response when the organization's interests (always) are at stake. In any company there is protocol to be followed, understandably, but individual response when queried must not deviate from the official company line, lest the individual be terminated.