Just about everything good in the (Western) world….
-
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course. Note for our American friends: Socialism is NOT communism. Don’t even bother continuing until you understand this basic point. And a second point, for anyone with poor logic skills: my saying most good things have come about through socialsit ideals is not the same thing as saying that everything every left-leaning perosn or governemnt has done has been good. Over very roughly about the last 200 years or so (say after the French Revolution in Europe and the American Civil War in the US) life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to mass education, emancipation (of women and slaves), enclosure laws and just general rights of ordinary people being enshrined in law. All socialist ideals, and all brought about in the face of fierce conservative opposition. In finance, these conservative forces kept taking and taking until they bankrupted virtually the entire Western economy in the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and this has to be rescued in the end by the socialist principle of pouring taxpayer money into public projects, and the introduction of a regulatory system to prevent a repeat. Then things carried on working just fine until once again the Right relaxed the market rules and allowed the rich to start stealing again, and inevitably this led to the same outcome – another big crash, which again had to be rescued by pouring taxpayer money in. Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
A_Griffin wrote:
enclosure laws
Uh? How was this beneficial?
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition.
Too simplistic. What if the state is socialism?
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
And yet Britain, if you are old enough to remember, was completely fucked in the early 70s. This was saved by conservatism. A much better way to look at the issue is: Left: High tax, centralised control, high regulation. Little chance of abuse due to the level of control, but high risk of inefficiency, bureaucracy, and stagnation. Right: Low tax, low control, low centralisation. High chance of abuse, due to lack of control, but efficient, fluid and dynamic economics. The problem is, as always, finding the balance. :)
-
OK. so I read it again. It is still a pile of crap. You aught to read The Declaration of Independence, you might learn something. Yes, Man has unalienable rights. Those rights pre existed any form of government. Government can not take them away but it does apply extotion and force to get us not to exercise those rights. What ever you call it socialism - communism - it is one set of men claiming rights they don't have - it is tyranny. Those that you say are conservative that have brought about such evil ARE NOT conservatives, they are tyrants. They do not believe in freedom, they believe in enslaving through any means - one of them is socialism, it is just one of thy myriad forms of tyranny - the one you believe in. The only way that really works is for ALL to honor ALL the rights of ALL men - that is true conservatism, not that pile of crap you defined.
Funny how a country built on The Declaration of Independence still had to have a bloody civil war to end slavery. Quite ironic how you talk about "enslaving" and "freedom" so much.
Quote:
What ever you call it socialism - communism
You still don't get it - despite my big bold note. SIgh.
-
Funny how a country built on The Declaration of Independence still had to have a bloody civil war to end slavery. Quite ironic how you talk about "enslaving" and "freedom" so much.
Quote:
What ever you call it socialism - communism
You still don't get it - despite my big bold note. SIgh.
-
Quote:
I've never read a bigger pile of crap on this site before.
I guess you must have written that before writing ()and reading) your own reply! :)
Quote:
Man is endowed by his creator
uh... yeah, right....
Quote:
There is no known example of socialism working
I suspect you just saw the word "socialism" in my post, decided it must therefore be "crap", and wrote your answer... try reading it again, carefully this time.
Found your OP interesting, although I didn't agree with it all, I thought you made some good points. This reply, to a well thought out response, is disappointing though.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
enclosure laws
Uh? How was this beneficial?
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition.
Too simplistic. What if the state is socialism?
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
And yet Britain, if you are old enough to remember, was completely fucked in the early 70s. This was saved by conservatism. A much better way to look at the issue is: Left: High tax, centralised control, high regulation. Little chance of abuse due to the level of control, but high risk of inefficiency, bureaucracy, and stagnation. Right: Low tax, low control, low centralisation. High chance of abuse, due to lack of control, but efficient, fluid and dynamic economics. The problem is, as always, finding the balance. :)
Yeah, you're right- don't know what I put the enclosure acts in for - brain fart. But the problems in the 70’s were brought about by the oil crisis, pure and simple. Not sure how you can say the economy was “saved by conservatism”... it laid the foundations which allowed Thatcher and Reagan to deregulate the money markets, acts which f***ed the world economy once and for all.
-
Funny how a country built on The Declaration of Independence still had to have a bloody civil war to end slavery. Quite ironic how you talk about "enslaving" and "freedom" so much.
Quote:
What ever you call it socialism - communism
You still don't get it - despite my big bold note. SIgh.
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery. The backers of the south were European royalty, it was about returning the new world to the tyrants that ruled Europe - that is the true nature of that beast. Now, what were all the civil wars about in England - war after war after war after war ...
-
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery. The backers of the south were European royalty, it was about returning the new world to the tyrants that ruled Europe - that is the true nature of that beast. Now, what were all the civil wars about in England - war after war after war after war ...
-
OK. so I read it again. It is still a pile of crap. You aught to read The Declaration of Independence, you might learn something. Yes, Man has unalienable rights. Those rights pre existed any form of government. Government can not take them away but it does apply extotion and force to get us not to exercise those rights. What ever you call it socialism - communism - it is one set of men claiming rights they don't have - it is tyranny. Those that you say are conservative that have brought about such evil ARE NOT conservatives, they are tyrants. They do not believe in freedom, they believe in enslaving through any means - one of them is socialism, it is just one of thy myriad forms of tyranny - the one you believe in. The only way that really works is for ALL to honor ALL the rights of ALL men - that is true conservatism, not that pile of crap you defined.
dlhale wrote:
Yes, Man has unalienable rights. Those rights pre existed any form of government.
This is intrinsic in Saxon culture: Anglo-Saxon law - Wikipedia[^] Common across northern europe (the germanic states) this is the back bone of common law in England and the US. Of course this sense of individual rights, and protection in law, is what gives us freedom, power, and made these countries the most powerful in the world.
-
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course. Note for our American friends: Socialism is NOT communism. Don’t even bother continuing until you understand this basic point. And a second point, for anyone with poor logic skills: my saying most good things have come about through socialsit ideals is not the same thing as saying that everything every left-leaning perosn or governemnt has done has been good. Over very roughly about the last 200 years or so (say after the French Revolution in Europe and the American Civil War in the US) life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to mass education, emancipation (of women and slaves), enclosure laws and just general rights of ordinary people being enshrined in law. All socialist ideals, and all brought about in the face of fierce conservative opposition. In finance, these conservative forces kept taking and taking until they bankrupted virtually the entire Western economy in the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and this has to be rescued in the end by the socialist principle of pouring taxpayer money into public projects, and the introduction of a regulatory system to prevent a repeat. Then things carried on working just fine until once again the Right relaxed the market rules and allowed the rich to start stealing again, and inevitably this led to the same outcome – another big crash, which again had to be rescued by pouring taxpayer money in. Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
For a moment, I thought this might be a discussion for WestWorld Series. But then found, this one is a more serious topic.
You can have all the tools in the world but if you don't genuinely believe in yourself, it's useless.
-
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery. The backers of the south were European royalty, it was about returning the new world to the tyrants that ruled Europe - that is the true nature of that beast. Now, what were all the civil wars about in England - war after war after war after war ...
dlhale wrote:
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery
Complete BS. Secession from the union was 100% about slavery. Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union[^] Slavery was illegal in Britain from 1772 (Somerset v Stewart ), and in its colonies form 1830. It is ludicrous to suggest Britain would support the south.
dlhale wrote:
what were all the civil wars about in England
The big one, 1645, was about the individual rights of man. John Locke, the philosopher of the American revoloution, wrote at this time. You should know this. The US war of independence was just the English Civil War part II, fought by the same people, for the same reasons. Prior to that were the usual power grabs, and the final 'invasion' (by the Dutch, 1670), was when about getting rid of catholicism for good form the UK power structure.
-
Yeah, you're right- don't know what I put the enclosure acts in for - brain fart. But the problems in the 70’s were brought about by the oil crisis, pure and simple. Not sure how you can say the economy was “saved by conservatism”... it laid the foundations which allowed Thatcher and Reagan to deregulate the money markets, acts which f***ed the world economy once and for all.
Yeah, the enclosure act, designed to make farming more efficient by rationalising the fractured land ownership map just ended up being abused by rich land owners when they stole the common land off the peasants. It was one of the greatest abuses of power and theft of rights from the common man in British history.
A_Griffin wrote:
But the problems in the 70’s were brought about by the oil crisis
No, it was an aggressive take over of the UK by Russian communism which was funding the National Miners Union (and possibly others). It was very nearly an act of war. Remember the miners strike, 3 day weeks, power cuts? We used to have to use candles at night to eat. And this went on for months. It was like the third world. How was industry supposed to functon? We had ambulance men no strike, the army was called in to do the job. The bin men were on strike, the rubbish was piled 10 ft high in the street, rats running around, stinking the place out. So bad was it that marshal law was nearly called. Thatcher fixed this. And fixed it good.
A_Griffin wrote:
which allowed Thatcher and Reagan to deregulate the money markets
Indeed. As stated there is increased risk of abuse from lack of oversight. It was a disaster. Like I said, the issue is balance, not right and wrong.
-
I've never read a bigger pile of crap on this site before. What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States. There are only two kinds of government in this world. theocracy and man ocracy. The first is recognized by the Declaration of Independance as Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. The second is also recognized by the same document as that from which independance was desired, rule of man - kings and dictators which become tyrants. What the Founding Fathers did was to create the great compromise - Rule of Law that allowed mere mortals to govern them selves without being kings and dictators - tyrants. However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process. There is a fundamental flaw in socialism, it doesn't work. There is no known example of socialism working. Why, because it violates the fundamental issue - Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. And one of those rights is that man has the right to enjoy ALL the fruits of his labor and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Government is instituted of man and proper government only has powers given it by those men. If man does not have the right to take from another, he can not give that right to government. But if government takes that power unto it's self, called tyranny, that government will eventually fail after bringing great misery to all - that is history - it is observable. The Free Market Economy goes hand in hand with freedom. It allows men the choice as to weather to cooperate with others or not, to exchange with others or not, to form alliances with others or not. Socialism is an economy that denies man these freedoms. It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors. Socialism can only exists through tyranny, so you tell me, how is that good?
-
Yeah, the enclosure act, designed to make farming more efficient by rationalising the fractured land ownership map just ended up being abused by rich land owners when they stole the common land off the peasants. It was one of the greatest abuses of power and theft of rights from the common man in British history.
A_Griffin wrote:
But the problems in the 70’s were brought about by the oil crisis
No, it was an aggressive take over of the UK by Russian communism which was funding the National Miners Union (and possibly others). It was very nearly an act of war. Remember the miners strike, 3 day weeks, power cuts? We used to have to use candles at night to eat. And this went on for months. It was like the third world. How was industry supposed to functon? We had ambulance men no strike, the army was called in to do the job. The bin men were on strike, the rubbish was piled 10 ft high in the street, rats running around, stinking the place out. So bad was it that marshal law was nearly called. Thatcher fixed this. And fixed it good.
A_Griffin wrote:
which allowed Thatcher and Reagan to deregulate the money markets
Indeed. As stated there is increased risk of abuse from lack of oversight. It was a disaster. Like I said, the issue is balance, not right and wrong.
Well, it (the '70's) was a complicated picture. But please note that I very carefully made it clear that I am not saying that everything the left has done is good, nor (dear Americans) am I advocating communism. My claim only is that all (ok, most, if you insist) of the things that have made life better for most people have come about through the introduction of policies and laws that come under the broad banner of socialism (not communism) as opposed to conservatism – and I have defined the former as being a way of thinking that limits the excesses of the rich and powerful to ensure a more equitable distribution (of power and riches), whereas your classic conservatives want unlimited power (deregulation, small government) to amass unlimited riches and allow the free reign. Anyway - as I said, I must get on with some work now... bloody rich people won't just give me their money for nothing! :)
-
dlhale wrote:
Yes, Man has unalienable rights. Those rights pre existed any form of government.
This is intrinsic in Saxon culture: Anglo-Saxon law - Wikipedia[^] Common across northern europe (the germanic states) this is the back bone of common law in England and the US. Of course this sense of individual rights, and protection in law, is what gives us freedom, power, and made these countries the most powerful in the world.
And where did they get it from. who are the Saxons, also known as the Caucasians. They are the people that settle northern europe and england after leaving their original home. They entered europe by passing through the caucus mountains after leaving the middle east, they are isrealites. They are isacc's sons, that is what saxon means. They got it from living a theocracy, they got it from their God.
-
I've never read a bigger pile of crap on this site before. What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States. There are only two kinds of government in this world. theocracy and man ocracy. The first is recognized by the Declaration of Independance as Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. The second is also recognized by the same document as that from which independance was desired, rule of man - kings and dictators which become tyrants. What the Founding Fathers did was to create the great compromise - Rule of Law that allowed mere mortals to govern them selves without being kings and dictators - tyrants. However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process. There is a fundamental flaw in socialism, it doesn't work. There is no known example of socialism working. Why, because it violates the fundamental issue - Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. And one of those rights is that man has the right to enjoy ALL the fruits of his labor and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Government is instituted of man and proper government only has powers given it by those men. If man does not have the right to take from another, he can not give that right to government. But if government takes that power unto it's self, called tyranny, that government will eventually fail after bringing great misery to all - that is history - it is observable. The Free Market Economy goes hand in hand with freedom. It allows men the choice as to weather to cooperate with others or not, to exchange with others or not, to form alliances with others or not. Socialism is an economy that denies man these freedoms. It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors. Socialism can only exists through tyranny, so you tell me, how is that good?
dlhale wrote:
What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States.
God bless America and its founding fathers for giving us all freedom!
-
And where did they get it from. who are the Saxons, also known as the Caucasians. They are the people that settle northern europe and england after leaving their original home. They entered europe by passing through the caucus mountains after leaving the middle east, they are isrealites. They are isacc's sons, that is what saxon means. They got it from living a theocracy, they got it from their God.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You are out to lunch. You come back with some half arsed lame theory about missing tribes of israel? Seriously? And then mention God? The ONE thing heavily religious societies exhibit is LACK of personal freedom!!!!
-
Well, it (the '70's) was a complicated picture. But please note that I very carefully made it clear that I am not saying that everything the left has done is good, nor (dear Americans) am I advocating communism. My claim only is that all (ok, most, if you insist) of the things that have made life better for most people have come about through the introduction of policies and laws that come under the broad banner of socialism (not communism) as opposed to conservatism – and I have defined the former as being a way of thinking that limits the excesses of the rich and powerful to ensure a more equitable distribution (of power and riches), whereas your classic conservatives want unlimited power (deregulation, small government) to amass unlimited riches and allow the free reign. Anyway - as I said, I must get on with some work now... bloody rich people won't just give me their money for nothing! :)
I disagree. Saxon common law, the backbone of UK and US freedom, stems not form socialism (the sense that we are responsible to and must protect/support our fellows) but from an unalienable sense that man has basic freedoms and rights. This is absoloutely enshrined in Saxon law. Read my latest post. And it is the pursuit of this law that has given us, in the west, the level of freedom we have today and given us a better life, because it is only through freedom and law that life can be better.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You are out to lunch. You come back with some half arsed lame theory about missing tribes of israel? Seriously? And then mention God? The ONE thing heavily religious societies exhibit is LACK of personal freedom!!!!
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You made the assertion, show us the 'proof' Saxons are a lost tribe of Israel. :) This should be a hoot!
-
Well, it (the '70's) was a complicated picture. But please note that I very carefully made it clear that I am not saying that everything the left has done is good, nor (dear Americans) am I advocating communism. My claim only is that all (ok, most, if you insist) of the things that have made life better for most people have come about through the introduction of policies and laws that come under the broad banner of socialism (not communism) as opposed to conservatism – and I have defined the former as being a way of thinking that limits the excesses of the rich and powerful to ensure a more equitable distribution (of power and riches), whereas your classic conservatives want unlimited power (deregulation, small government) to amass unlimited riches and allow the free reign. Anyway - as I said, I must get on with some work now... bloody rich people won't just give me their money for nothing! :)
I know some rich 'socialists' and I actually prefer the blatantly rich conservative who I can identify as a jerk to the slippery virtue signally wealthy socialist who is living something of a lie using various laws to make sure they pay as little tax as possible.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens