Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[untermensche]

The way you straighten out systems of power is to make them democratic.

Because the majority never votes away the rights of the minority.

Right now those with great wealth that control governments have a lot more rights than the people in jail because of their drug war.

You seem blind to the violation of rights created by a great disparity in wealth.

You only seem to even think about rights when you use the concept as a form of hand waving to oppose democracy.

So we should put all power in your hands instead.

There is a slim difference between putting all power in my hands and democracy.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Drug War is a result of capitalists controlling the government. The people never asked for it.

There's money in for-profit prisons.

The Drug war started 40 or more years ago. Long before for profit prisons and for profit prisons is a very small part of the Justice system. It was done for a couple of reasons, but the belief was that drugs were a harmful behavior holding people down and if we encouraged them through laws not to do it then they would improve people's lives long term.

A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Fascinating, unter, that not a single thing you wrote refuted a single thing I wrote.

Now let us see if you can actually define the word "capitalism."

 

[coloradoatheist]

A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war

I gave a second part saying that too. Nixon started the drug war in the 70s, Reagan continued it because of belief of character. The majority do hate some of the bad effects of drugs, rightfully or wrongly though.

 

[untermensche]

Fascinating, unter, that not a single thing you wrote refuted a single thing I wrote.

Now let us see if you can actually define the word "capitalism."

You're deluded.

I say I want to expand democracy. Not on a whim but because dictatorship and the concentrated power that arises from it is dangerous and immoral.

And you somehow turn that into me wanting all power.

 

[untermensche]

A top Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted: “You want to know what this was really all about. The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying. We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/brief-history-drug-war

I gave a second part saying that too. Nixon started the drug war in the 70s, Reagan continued it because of belief of character. The majority do hate some of the bad effects of drugs, rightfully or wrongly though.

Bullshit!

The majority do not want the government in the business of regulating what adults put into the bodies.

There are absolute fucking morons that support things just because the government does them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I gave a second part saying that too. Nixon started the drug war in the 70s, Reagan continued it because of belief of character. The majority do hate some of the bad effects of drugs, rightfully or wrongly though.

Bullshit!

The majority do not want the government in the business of regulating what adults put into the bodies.

There are absolute fucking morons that support things just because the government does them.

There has been a big push to get crack, heroin, and meth legalized?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Fascinating, unter, that not a single thing you wrote refuted a single thing I wrote.

Now let us see if you can actually define the word "capitalism."

You're deluded.

I say I want to expand democracy.

And yet every time I ask you about how to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority your answer is "I have faith that it won't".

That is why I say you want all power - you want to have the veto power reserved to yourself to say "this is why they won't, I won't let them" but that doesn't look very good.

 

[untermensche]

I gave a second part saying that too. Nixon started the drug war in the 70s, Reagan continued it because of belief of character. The majority do hate some of the bad effects of drugs, rightfully or wrongly though.

Bullshit!

The majority do not want the government in the business of regulating what adults put into the bodies.

There are absolute fucking morons that support things just because the government does them.

There has been a big push to get crack, heroin, and meth legalized?

Those drugs are such a small problem compared to some really dangerous drugs.

Nicotine and alcohol.

 

[untermensche]

Fascinating, unter, that not a single thing you wrote refuted a single thing I wrote.

Now let us see if you can actually define the word "capitalism."

You're deluded.

I say I want to expand democracy.

And yet every time I ask you about how to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority your answer is "I have faith that it won't".

Right now we have a minority that through corruption of government is taking away the rights of the majority.

When in history did a population vote away the rights of a minority?

Rights are something all people have equally.

They cannot be voted away.

Only dictators take away rights. That is another reason to oppose them in all forms.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And yet every time I ask you about how to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority your answer is "I have faith that it won't".

Right now we have a minority that through corruption of government is taking away the rights of the majority.

When in history did a population vote away the rights of a minority?

Rights are something all people have equally.

They cannot be voted away.

Only dictators take away rights. That is another reason to oppose them in all forms.

Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the treatment of Jews in Germany.....

 

[Elixir]

There has been a big push to get crack, heroin, and meth legalized?

Those drugs are such a small problem compared to some really dangerous drugs.

Nicotine and alcohol.

Maybe they're smaller problems because they're illegal?
I don't think so, but that's the obvious rejoinder.
I think (and I'll keep repeating this until someone takes issue with it) Portugal got it right.

It's going on 15 years that they decriminalized drugs, and all the associated problems that persist in the US are either entirely gone, or hugely mitigated. Why are we still in the stone age?

 

[untermensche]

And yet every time I ask you about how to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority your answer is "I have faith that it won't".

Right now we have a minority that through corruption of government is taking away the rights of the majority.

When in history did a population vote away the rights of a minority?

Rights are something all people have equally.

They cannot be voted away.

Only dictators take away rights. That is another reason to oppose them in all forms.

Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the treatment of Jews in Germany.....

Slavery did not arise because of democratic vote. Women couldn't even vote.

Only the rich could vote and they are who gave us slavery.

They also gave us Jim Crow laws through corrupted governments that were not democratic.

And a dictator gave us the treatment of Jews in Germany.

Another reason to oppose dictators in all their forms.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the treatment of Jews in Germany.....

Slavery did not arise because of democratic vote. Women couldn't even vote.

Only the rich could vote and they are who gave us slavery.

They also gave us Jim Crow laws through corrupted governments that were not democratic.

And a dictator gave us the treatment of Jews in Germany.

Another reason to oppose dictators in all their forms.

Of course if you don't like the laws or the byproduct it has to be they were corrupted, though the Jim Crow laws were around almost 100 years and even the north had it's own understood laws.

Hitler was voted into power and anti-semitism was the dominant, not minority belief. Maybe not to the point of gassing people, but it takes a lot of people to support a system of their magnitude to perform that work.

 

[untermensche]

Jim Crow Laws, slavery, the treatment of Jews in Germany.....

Slavery did not arise because of democratic vote. Women couldn't even vote.

Only the rich could vote and they are who gave us slavery.

They also gave us Jim Crow laws through corrupted governments that were not democratic.

And a dictator gave us the treatment of Jews in Germany.

Another reason to oppose dictators in all their forms.

Of course if you don't like the laws or the byproduct it has to be they were corrupted, though the Jim Crow laws were around almost 100 years and even the north had it's own understood laws.

Hitler was voted into power and anti-semitism was the dominant, not minority belief. Maybe not to the point of gassing people, but it takes a lot of people to support a system of their magnitude to perform that work.

You are showing me examples of governments controlled by minority interests or by outright dictators and calling it democracy.

It is total nonsense.

The majority has no interest in taking away the rights of anyone.

That is some defect of minorities and mainly individuals.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And yet every time I ask you about how to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority your answer is "I have faith that it won't".

Right now we have a minority that through corruption of government is taking away the rights of the majority.

Doesn't answer the question.

When in history did a population vote away the rights of a minority?

Examples have been provided.

Rights are something all people have equally.

True, but irrelevant.

They cannot be voted away.

True, but a vote can be taken to violate those rights.

Only dictators take away rights. That is another reason to oppose them in all forms.

You've never heard of the dictatorship of the majority?

This is how we know you want to be the dictator - you want the absolute unchecked power to prevent a majority from voting away the rights of the minority.

 

[untermensche]

Examples have been provided.

You gave no example of a majority voting away the rights of a minority.

Give me a break.

Hitler was a brutal dictator when he started exterminating Jews not a democratic representative.

Not all dictators begin as dictators but people with eyes can see a dictator.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So if you pretend you don't see it then it hasn't been provided.

The real question is what is to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority, other than "unter says so."

By the way...

Sunnis in Iraq
The current genocide in South Africa

 

[untermensche]

You really have a problem understanding the concepts of democracy and a majority.

It is because capitalism is opposed to democracy.

 

[arkirk]

You really have a problem understanding the concepts of democracy and a majority.

It is because capitalism is opposed to democracy.

There needs to be humanistic constitutional law or democracies can in fact persecute, even murder minorities with their votes. Prejudice is whipped up by media with an agenda. It is common. Jim Crow laws were just one example. There needs to be a humanistic basis for a constitution AND a constitution concerned with human rights. Without that, you can have mob rule. Human emotions become irrational on a very large scale at times and we have horrendous suffering in wars, and sanctions. What happened in Iraq is a prime example. A "democratic" country engaged in sanctions that clearly violated the human rights of a half million minor children in that country because we used inappropriate policies against Saddam Hussein. Later it got even worse with bombing and invasion. Our democracy is very much on the verge of dissolving. It is scary to say the least.

EVERYONE has to have a vote. Everyone has to have access to free open debates on how we determine policy. There cannot be people taking the most accepted policy ideas off the table, like Pelosi did with single payer. She should not be allowed to call herself a Democrat. And Trump, with his narcissism, is not rightfully a president. He did not get a majority of the votes in the election. When a system gets so tweaked that a clown like the orange man can "pull us out" of international agreements all on his own, democracy has flown the coup...and all we have is strutting roosters.