Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[dismal]

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama. .

These states have not yet been able to recover from the century and a half they were controlled by Democrats, I guess.

Or perhaps more to the point: They have largely the same government as modern day Democrat paradises like California, New York and Detroit. Most of our government is federal now and their federal government layer is the exact same. Their state government is little differences at the margins.

 

[Axulus]

It has never once happened.

Lol, are you really that ignorant of history?

Some recent examples:

CA Prop 8, and all those red states that passed constitutional amendments against same sex marriage. The ban on same sex unions before that was supported by a solid majority.

Marijuana legalization initiatives have failed to pass in some states because a majority voted against it. It took CA a few tries. Many other states failed on the first try.

Something simple like city uilding codes mandating certain designs and colors imposes the will of a majority against a minority who may wish to do something eccentric with their homes.

Jim crow laws in the south were certainly supported by the majority in those states.

Religious minorities have been persecuted in democracies and have had their rights stripped many times. Germany (there was majority support to curtail rights of Jews even before Nazis came to power). Even in the US majorities try to impose restrictions on religious minorities quite frequently (Christians giving themselves special privileges or taking away rights of non christians) , and we have to get the courts involved to protect the minorities. FFRF's main mission is to protect religious minorities from Christians using the protections from the 1st amendment.

Pornography used to be far more restrictions than it does now because the majority wanted it that way.

I could go on, and on, and on.

 

[untermensche]

It has never once happened.

Lol, are you really that ignorant of history?

Some recent examples:

CA Prop 8, and all those red states that passed constitutional amendments against same sex marriage. The ban on same sex unions before that was supported by a solid majority.

This is a new "right" and there is always societal inertia when new rights are emerging. Many people that did not own slaves or propser because of slavery supported it because it was the way things were when they were born. The same is true of gay marriage. We just have to wait a little longer and it will be universal.

But the right to gay marriage is much more widespread just in my lifetime. Many more gay people have the right to get married. This is a poor example.

Marijuana legalization initiatives have failed to pass in some states because a majority voted against it. It took CA a few tries. Many other states failed on the first try.

Again, a NEW right. Not the taking of a right already established.

Something simple like city uilding codes mandating certain designs and colors imposes the will of a majority against a minority who may wish to do something eccentric with their homes.

This is a joke. A person has the right to move. They should know what they are getting into when they buy.

Jim crow laws in the south were certainly supported by the majority in those states.

This is because they were established law when the people that supported them were born. It was the world they knew.

But once the rights were given it is only a minority that has tried to take them away again.

Religious minorities have been persecuted in democracies and have had their rights stripped many times. Germany (there was majority support to curtail rights of Jews even before Nazis came to power). Even in the US majorities try to impose restrictions on religious minorities quite frequently (Christians giving themselves special privileges or taking away rights of non christians) , and we have to get the courts involved to protect the minorities. FFRF's main mission is to protect religious minorities from Christians using the protections from the 1st amendment.

How majorities behave under insane dictatorships that have no parallel in history are not examples of how people behave in a free democracy.

The Nazi's used a bit of propaganda to gain support.

In a democracy their propaganda could have been questioned.

Pornography used to be far more restrictions than it does now because the majority wanted it that way.

This is moving to expand rights.

I could go on, and on, and on.

You could start.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You really do love True Scotsmen.

For the record, Marijuana was in the past completely legal and had no regulation on it at all. Due to a combination of factors including rent-seeking paper mills and racism, it was then made illegal. THEN the measure to legalize it appeared, some of them passing and some of them not. So it is NOT a new right, it is taking back an old right that was taken from the people.

You might try to No True Scotsman the banning of it in the first place, but you can't No True Scotsman the failure to pass legalization in the present times.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Rights are something all people have equally.

They cannot be voted away.

This is a new "right" and there is always societal inertia when new rights are emerging.
...

Again, a NEW right. Not the taking of a right already established.

So ... you believe there can be "new" rights? So if everyone has the same amount of no rights, they are just as free as if everyone had the same amount of a lot of rights?

 

[untermensche]

Rights are something all people have equally.

They cannot be voted away.

This is a new "right" and there is always societal inertia when new rights are emerging.
...

Again, a NEW right. Not the taking of a right already established.

So ... you believe there can be "new" rights? So if everyone has the same amount of no rights, they are just as free as if everyone had the same amount of a lot of rights?

Many more gay people can get married now than when I was born.

You are talking about an expanding right.

Not a shrinking right.

You have no evidence of any rights being reduced because of the evil voting of a majority in a democracy.

And any example using the US is using a corrupted polluted democracy.

 

[untermensche]

You really do love True Scotsmen.

For the record, Marijuana was in the past completely legal and had no regulation on it at all. Due to a combination of factors including rent-seeking paper mills and racism, it was then made illegal. THEN the measure to legalize it appeared, some of them passing and some of them not. So it is NOT a new right, it is taking back an old right that was taken from the people.

You might try to No True Scotsman the banning of it in the first place, but you can't No True Scotsman the failure to pass legalization in the present times.

A minority made marijuana illegal.

It is always some minority that takes away rights.

The solution is more and more democracy.

And education for those who cry to have some minority of wealth rule.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Thank you for admitting that marijuana is not a new right. Now you can address the times that votes were taken to make it legal and those votes failed.

Your principle that "as long as we are equal then we are free" is an interesting one, it does indeed mean that if we are all equally slaves then we are also free.

Your other principle is that if a vote takes a way a right it is not a True Scotsman, but if a vote restores or expands or creates a right it is a True Scotsman.

Do you even know what "No True Scotsman" means?

 

[untermensche]

Thank you for admitting that marijuana is not a new right. Now you can address the times that votes were taken to make it legal and those votes failed.

Your principle that "as long as we are equal then we are free" is an interesting one, it does indeed mean that if we are all equally slaves then we are also free.

Your other principle is that if a vote takes a way a right it is not a True Scotsman, but if a vote restores or expands or creates a right it is a True Scotsman.

Do you even know what "No True Scotsman" means?

You are desperate.

You have NOTHING!!

You have been brainwashed to dislike democracy by people that oppose it.

A few rich people controlling Congress on most things is not democracy.

The drug laws did not arise because of popular support.

Slavery did not exist because people voted for it.

Democracy is not utopia.

But it is the best thing we got. And those that oppose it oppose the greatest freedom possible. They are supporters of dictatorship in one form or another. Today it is usually the dictatorship of accumulated wealth.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Democracy is not utopia.

True. Sometimes the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority. But when that happens you say "it isn't a democracy" so you don't have to talk about it.

So, when Australia restricted firearms a few years ago to the point where it is essentially a full ban, was that democracy?

 

[dismal]

Democracy is not utopia.

True. Sometimes the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority. But when that happens you say "it isn't a democracy" so you don't have to talk about it.

So, when Australia restricted firearms a few years ago to the point where it is essentially a full ban, was that democracy?

Guys let me take this one: Me likey firearms ban so dat = socialism + freedom + democracy +2 diversity - 1.5 climate change.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Democracy is better than alternatives. It's even better and has less a problem of majority rule when there is a constitutional framework guaranteeing rights of minorities. Article V of our Constitution also makes changing this aspect extremely difficult because you need super majorities among each state for a super majority of states and super majorities in congress for a change. At-risk-of-rights-violated minorities will have impact on this process being able to sway whether a group is a super majority or not.

Our current government is somewhat corrupted and so there is undue influence on the system. Likewise, for people, as there are some who are brainwashed. Those are problems to be dealt with to improve the future.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is an atheist board. Not only would this board not be supported in several societies, they would be asking for us to be beheaded.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Heads are over rated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is an atheist board. Not only would this board not be supported in several societies, they would be asking for us to be beheaded.

Those societies are generally capitalist, generally not democratic, and generally not constitutional. So what point are you making that is relevant to the thread? Let's not derail it.

 

[untermensche]

Democracy is not utopia.

True. Sometimes the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority. But when that happens you say "it isn't a democracy" so you don't have to talk about it.

So, when Australia restricted firearms a few years ago to the point where it is essentially a full ban, was that democracy?

Only in the deluded imagination of brain washed fools is that a real problem.

The rights of all are best protected in a democracy.

The better the democracy the better the rights of all are protected.

Wailing against democracy is asking for a few to be able to screw over the rest. It is begging for it.

Having all people without access to firearms is a wise safety measure. The right to life is far superior to the right to own a handgun. Civilization is about balancing rights. It is about restricting the right of one person to harm another.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Democracy is not utopia.

True. Sometimes the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority. But when that happens you say "it isn't a democracy" so you don't have to talk about it.

So, when Australia restricted firearms a few years ago to the point where it is essentially a full ban, was that democracy?

Only in the deluded imagination of brain washed fools is that a real problem.

The rights of all are best protected in a democracy.

The better the democracy the better the rights of all are protected.

Wailing against democracy is asking for a few to be able to screw over the rest. It is begging for it.

Having all people without access to firearms is a wise safety measure.

They might be more protected, but it's not guaranteed. People tend to want to take away free speech or beliefs of people who don't go along with the majority. Your arguments are protected because we have rules that allow free speech.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an atheist board. Not only would this board not be supported in several societies, they would be asking for us to be beheaded.

Those societies are generally capitalist, generally not democratic, and generally not constitutional. So what point are you making that is relevant to the thread? Let's not derail it.

Agree with everything except the capitalist part. Usually they only thing they have going for them is oil. But in those societies freedom of speech and religion are not protected because of the religious belief of the majority.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't Iran capitalist?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The rights of all are best protected in a democracy.

Best but not perfect, as sometimes the majority votes to violate those rights.

Wailing against democracy is asking for a few to be able to screw over the rest. It is begging for it.

I'm not wailing against democracy, I'm asking how you plan to protect people against this potentiality.

Having all people without access to firearms is a wise safety measure.

So it isn't diminishing anyones' rights if it isn't a right you agree with. Therefore this isn't a True Scotsman. Got it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom