Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[Robert Taylor]

I suggest many of you should broaden your description of 'communism' and look back further in time. 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.
Consider the purity of the systems examined and the motivations of the leaders. Concentrate not on the words of the leaders, but on their actions (Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

From what I have seen, the failures of modern communism have not been because of communism per se but because of the nature of man to seek control and power over others. In effect, the failure of soviet communism came through the arrogant, dictator personality of Stalin followed by the greed of subsequent leaders (greed of course indicates an authoritarian or capitalist streak not communist ideology).

Likewise though, capitalist societies are also failures and have been dragged down by the greed of those who demand to rule; people like Pinochet, Bush and Reagan. Their failure is indicated in the vast disparity in opportunity within those societies and the ruptures in culture and society caused by that disparity.

I have indicated recently and in the past that I favour neo-socialism. That is a system, like Denmark etc, where capitalism exists but is subordinate to social policy. IMO, those are the successes of today, not the USA. Those are the societies that produce the most valid outcomes: happiness, equality and contentment.
The combination of fundamental socialist principles with the freedom to create ones own small world through business OR culture creates a more successful society as measured not by the ridiculous 'wealth' indicator but by the Quality of Life and Happiness indicators.

Wealth and money is not a valid indicator of happiness and contentment.

Actually, I agree with a small part of what you have said. Quality of life is a better indicator, adjudged against a different set of parameters. The Japanese are paid well and have expendable income for toys, but basically live in ''cubicles'' No thanks..

[idleidolidyll]

Actually, I agree with a small part of what you have said. Quality of life is a better indicator, adjudged against a different set of parameters. The Japanese are paid well and have expendable income for toys, but basically live in ''cubicles'' No thanks..

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

[Robert Taylor]

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

The simple answer is I do not have the time that you have to write very long detailed justifications of ones political persuasion.... because I work very very long hours and that is not going to abate any time soon. May sound like a convenient excuse but that is the cold hard reality. And I took the pee out of you in another thread with the same basic message.

It IS entirely workable to have principles that are both conservative and compassionate / to have a sense of fair play. I fail to see how anyone could disagree by saying its impossible. And also, conservatism doesnt neccessarily have to go hand in hand with the excesses of the free market. Those excesses you and I clearly agree on.

I just cannot stomach the Karl Marxs, Nandor Tanczos, Sue Bradfords, Keith Lockes, Helen Clarks and Norm Kirks of this world....but conversely I had some respect for some of what the late Rod Donald had to say. Call that a conundrum, yes indeed!

So I am not the right wing fascist people may believe, just a hard working Kiwi that wants to see equality of opportunity, a fair rather than draconian taxation system and an economy that is not top heavy with civil servants and the ''smoke and mirrors'' that they perpetuate etc etc.

[idleidolidyll]

The simple answer is I do not have the time that you have to write very long detailed justifications of ones political persuasion.... because I work very very long hours and that is not going to abate any time soon.

So you keep saying but I've noticed that you spend as much or more time here than me.

You're quick to attack but slow to offer your own policies: the sign of the morally bankrupt

[idleidolidyll]

It IS entirely workable to have principles that are both conservative and compassionate / to have a sense of fair play. I fail to see how anyone could disagree by saying its impossible. And also, conservatism doesnt neccessarily have to go hand in hand with the excesses of the free market. Those excesses you and I clearly agree on.

No it doesn't. Conservatism may in fact be religious indoctrination and abusive in some other way. The reason it can't work is because it always wants to stop when one group has the power and others are subservient.

I just cannot stomach the Karl Marxs, Nandor Tanczos, Sue Bradfords, Keith Lockes, Helen Clarks and Norm Kirks of this world....but conversely I had some respect for some of what the late Rod Donald had to say. Call that a conundrum, yes indeed!

That you lump those people all together shows to me that you actually know bugger all about them and their beliefs and philosophies.

So I am not the right wing fascist people may believe, just a hard working Kiwi that wants to see equality of opportunity, a fair rather than draconian taxation system and an economy that is not top heavy with civil servants and the ''smoke and mirrors'' that they perpetuate etc etc.

Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds more like someone who wants the world to be the model that he desires and bugger the rest.

[davereid]

..... 'Communism' did not begin with Marx just as capitalism did not begin with Smith; both have existed in many forms and at many times in the past.....Consider the purity of the systems examined.....

Purity of the system.

Exactly.

The first time two cavemen traded voluntarily, swapping a leg of lamb for some fermented wheat, a pure system of trade had developed. Lets call it "free trade".

The first time a bigger caveman showed up, and took the beer or leg of lamb using force, then violent crime had developed.

The first time a group of cavemen took the beer, the leg of lamb and a share of everything else, violent government had arrived.

You can call your violent government anything you like. Socialist, communist, even capitalist. Its all irrelevant, because its all based on the dodgy foundation of force for the common good.

Socialists and communists are trapped in this violence. They have to use it to exist.

Lots of goverments just use it with considering what they are, or bothering with the facade of voting, or democracy. They just call it a kingdom, call you a subject, and do what they want.

There is only one solution, and its based on capitalisim.

Capitalist society CAN exist without using force to take resources off unwilling citizens. I absolutely accept that it needs managing, and it can easily become a self serving monarchy.

It can easily degenerate into violence, but it has one special redeeming feature. Ands thats that it doesn't need to cross the line of using force to take someone elses money.

Sure it can do violence really well. But it doesnt have to.

None of the other systems can manage with out violence.

If you use force to take money and resources off others, you can call yourself anything you like.

But all you are is a violent criminal.

[Winston001]

a question from this morning: have you decided to offer actual ideas on your political ideology or are you gonna continue to attack the messenger and say fuck all yourself?

You really don't get it III, do you? Reasoned discourse. The intelligent exchange of views. Persuasion through example. That is how you convert readers to your point of view.

Instead what happens? At 5:05pm you post a perfectly rational statement in unemotive language. Good. Robert gives a short reply and what is your response? Sarcasm and abuse.

I really don't understand your motivation. The moment an argument dips into the personal and becomes emotive, the theme is lost. And the loser is the person who breaks the line. Don't do it. You'll get far more traction with your opinions if you stick to the high ground and attack the issues, not the individual.

[Sanx]

(Hitler said he was a socialist but his actions indicate he was a capitalist/fascist. Bush says he is a compassionate conservative but he kills at his leisure).

Just a small point... fascism does not equal capitalism. Fascism is extreme authoritarianism, where the needs and rights of the individual are subserviant to those of the state. Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Mao Tse Tung were just as fascist as Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet.

The political spectrum does not just have one long line along which all politicians and beliefs are located; it's more of a two axis system. Left to right is communism/socialism to extreme capitalism. Top to bottom is fascism to anarchy. All of the above dictators were under the illusion that the rights of the individual were very much second to what they perceived to be in the best interest of the State. That makes them all fascists ... and we're not a huge distance from that in NZ.

[Robert Taylor]

So you keep saying but I've noticed that you spend as much or more time here than me.

You're quick to attack but slow to offer your own policies: the sign of the morally bankrupt

More time offering solutions to suspension problems, yes.

But nowhere near as much time as you engage yourself in abusing those who dont agree with you and ramming leftish dogma and propaganda down peoples throats. Of course its a given that you wont agree but what the heck, Im not going to lose sleep over it.

[Robert Taylor]

Doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds more like someone who wants the world to be the model that he desires and bugger the rest.

You are of course entitled to beleive what makes you feel comfortable, many people do whether its right or wrong.

[Fatjim]

I think a good book on the subject would be "how to win friends and influence people".

[Pex Adams]

I think a good book on the subject would be "how to win friends and influence people".

Does that come with pictures?

[davereid]

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the
virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented,
forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of
public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed
under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted
from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed,
hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned,
judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

P. J. Proudhon, _General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

[Sanx]

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the
virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented,
forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of
public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed
under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted
from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed,
hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned,
judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."

P. J. Proudhon, _General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

Fuck ... I knew Labour had plagiarised their election campaign material from somewhere.