Errors of Russia
#21
(02-14-2012, 12:01 PM)PeterII Wrote: But then what separates a Marxist society from other societies?  It is obviously the command economy and theft of private property for the "good" of the whole.
I am for private property but Marxism also sees man as an economic animal, the same as liberalism.
Reply
#22
(02-14-2012, 12:01 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Vetus Ordo Wrote:I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you know what Marxism is and what it entails as a philosophy? It's pure materialism, it strips man of his soul.

If Marxism were just about "more government and less freedom," then these "errors" predate Communist Russia for centuries.

But then what separates a Marxist society from other societies?  It is obviously the command economy and theft of private property for the "good" of the whole.

You're oversimplifying it to an unhealthy extreme. Marxism is a whole philosophy of being based on materialism, it's not mere economics. Communist nations were not just about big government - most of which they inherited from previous systems - but about redeeming man on a secular level. It was about the promised paradise on earth that was only possible with the birth of a new man, redeemed and free from the bonds of economical and spiritual slavery of capitalist and feudal societies. Marxism presupposes that the human race will infallibly evolve into its final stage wherein communism will reign. There you'll have the "communist," the homo sovieticus. The whole thing goes much deeper than just centrally planned economies and state atheism, although those are the most visible aspects of it.

Redistribution of wealth per se does not equate "theft of private property," if that's what you mean, despite the nice ring to it. It can be prudent or imprudent to do so, and sometimes even unlawful, but it's within a government's rights to distribute tax money according to a policy intended to foster the common good: that's basically the welfare state, the social "safety net," which predates communism itself. Of course, forced nationalisations are wrong and violate the rights of private property as well as the absolute prohibition against private ownership of the means of production.
Reply
#23
Vetus Ordo Wrote:Permissively, yes.

Obama, or any other president of the United States, can certainly and lawfully coerce you, within moral bounds. All authority comes from God. You see, this is an inherent problem of democracy: the disrespect and contempt it breeds for authority since "we, the people" are the source of all authority and sovereignty, and not God.

And what does God not permit through his permissive will?  That authority comes from God serves no practical purpose when it is the consent of the people that determine who gets to wield "God's authority".
Reply
#24
(02-14-2012, 12:01 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Vetus Ordo Wrote:I'm not sure I'm following you. Do you know what Marxism is and what it entails as a philosophy? It's pure materialism, it strips man of his soul.

If Marxism were just about "more government and less freedom," then these "errors" predate Communist Russia for centuries.

But then what separates a Marxist society from other societies?  It is obviously the command economy and theft of private property for the "good" of the whole.

The material dialectic leading to a brave Utopian future.  Unfortunately, since the dialectic ain't true, this never happens.
Reply
#25
(02-14-2012, 12:21 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Vetus Ordo Wrote:Permissively, yes.

Obama, or any other president of the United States, can certainly and lawfully coerce you, within moral bounds. All authority comes from God. You see, this is an inherent problem of democracy: the disrespect and contempt it breeds for authority since "we, the people" are the source of all authority and sovereignty, and not God.

And what does God not permit through his permissive will?  That authority comes from God serves no practical purpose when it is the consent of the people that determine who gets to wield "God's authority".

It serves a practical purpose: it's the basis of all authority and the due check on it.

The will and consent of the people, if that's even possible to determine, does not constitute divine law nor is it the source and basis of public authority properly speaking.
Reply
#26
(02-14-2012, 12:21 PM)PeterII Wrote:
Vetus Ordo Wrote:Permissively, yes.

Obama, or any other president of the United States, can certainly and lawfully coerce you, within moral bounds. All authority comes from God. You see, this is an inherent problem of democracy: the disrespect and contempt it breeds for authority since "we, the people" are the source of all authority and sovereignty, and not God.

And what does God not permit through his permissive will?  That authority comes from God serves no practical purpose when it is the consent of the people that determine who gets to wield "God's authority".

The Bible explicitly says that Nero Ceaser has his authority from God, and ought to be respected and obeyed on that count.
Reply
#27
(02-14-2012, 11:58 AM)Walty Wrote: Man has no "rights" other than the right to worship good and to practice virtue.  All other rhetoric of "liberty" is based upon the idea that man should be his own god, and govern himself apart from as much authority (including religious authority) as possible.  This is why the Enlightenment was not a good movement.

If you believe in the 10 Commandments, then man has plenty of rights which you have no authority to take away.  "Thou shalt not kill" means people have a right to life, and freedom from violence.  "Thou shalt not steal" means people have a right to private property and to dispense with it as they see fit.   One of the principles of the Enlightenment is equality before the law, so it was not all bad.  
Reply
#28
(02-14-2012, 11:52 AM)Traditional Guy Wrote:
(02-14-2012, 11:48 AM)PeterII Wrote: Well, we have to overcome fallen human nature.  The community exists to protect individuals, not the other way around.  China has rapidly grown because a repressed population was given limited economic freedom in the 80s.  The growth is not built on autocracy and mercantilism, it comes from reducing it.  
Oh really? By your standards the Russia of Peter the Great, the England of Victoria and Lord Salisbury, the France of Louis XIV and Napoleon, the Roman Republic and Empire, the Virginia of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, the Germany of Bismarck, the Prussia of Frederick the Great, etc. were all unsuccessful societies since none were 'responsive to freedom.' And yes China has sustained her growth by her huge trade surpluses with America. But I know libertarians are for free trade, because they enjoy their prosperity from economic foundations and college classrooms.

If your idea of success is killing people in wars and taking property, then a lot of your examples were very successful. 
Reply
#29
The 10 Commandments have nothing to do with rights. The idea of "natural rights" is a completely modern invention coming out of the Enlightenment. Libertarians need to cool it on the cultural imperialism.
Reply
#30
Parmandur Wrote:The Bible explicitly says that Nero Ceaser has his authority from God, and ought to be respected and obeyed on that count.

That is a good example you've brought up.  Agrippina, Nero's mother, poisoned Claudius with mushrooms which allowed Nero to establish power. So if the basis of authority comes from poisoning politicians, I'm all for that.   
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)