Cultures that promote their members well-being, through communism or socialism tend to collapse, or many deaths involved. Look at USSR, Venezuela, Nazi-Germany, Mao China. The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
You have no idea what my "argument" even was. Read the thread for context. I was not talking about socialism.
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis).
And nobody is arguing anything that suggests killing of a race and taking the stuff to be good so I only see that supporting the idea that government control is (EDIT: not) harmful with such a reason to fall back on.
And Australian Living Standards have only declined by very small amount over the past few years (around 0.6%), especially compared to the more than 50% growth over the past few decades overall. It's mostly stagnating, not declining.
The growth over the last few decades I would say Australia was more free economy. And this decline is happening because we are becoming more socialist. The stats support my view.
The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis).
And nobody is arguing anything that suggests killing of a race and taking the stuff to be good so I only see that supporting the idea that government control is (EDIT: not) harmful with such a reason to fall back on.
And Australian Living Standards have only declined by very small amount over the past few years (around 0.6%), especially compared to the more than 50% growth over the past few decades overall. It's mostly stagnating, not declining.
The growth over the last few decades I would say Australia was more free economy. And this decline is happening because we are becoming more socialist. The stats support my view.
The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
Me, two posts before what you quoted, because you didn't read the thread for context like I told you to (not that you should even need to be told): "I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years."
A little bit earlier: "Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution."
You think I may have been talking about human rights, perhaps? "Life, liberty, and property" and all that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Cultures that promote their members well-being, through communism or socialism tend to collapse, or many deaths involved. Look at USSR, Venezuela, Nazi-Germany, Mao China. The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
You have no idea what my "argument" even was. Read the thread for context. I was not talking about socialism.
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
Speaking of examples, I'd still love to get some examples of people being executed in modern Australia for the crime of tax evasion.
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
Me, two posts before what you quoted, because you didn't read the thread for context like I told you to (not that you should even need to be told): "I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years."
A little bit earlier: "Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution."
You think I may have been talking about human rights, perhaps? "Life, liberty, and property" and all that?
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
Me, two posts before what you quoted, because you didn't read the thread for context like I told you to (not that you should even need to be told): "I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years."
A little bit earlier: "Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution."
You think I may have been talking about human rights, perhaps? "Life, liberty, and property" and all that?
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
Still don't see an example backing up your claim about people being executed as punishment for tax evasion. Since you've failed to demonstrate this repeatedly now, I'll assume you're incapable of coming up with an example and are tactfully surrendering the point.
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
You are simply not talking about what I'm talking about. You're echoing my words without understanding what they refer to. And to be blunt, I'm not interested in trying to teach evolutionary ethics to someone who's going to fight me every step of the way. So let this one go. If you're truly interested in the topic, you can start by reading Leviathan and The Origin of Species, then maybe a modern synthesis like Darwin's Dangerous Idea or The Better Angels of Our Nature.
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
You are simply not talking about what I'm talking about. You're echoing my words without understanding what they refer to. And to be blunt, I'm not interested in trying to teach evolutionary ethics to someone who's going to fight me every step of the way. So let this one go. If you're truly interested in the topic, you can start by reading Leviathan and The Origin of Species, then maybe a modern synthesis like Darwin's Dangerous Idea or The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Evolutionary ethics is....difficult. Biological and social/cultural evolution can be quite different. For one, biological evolution does not "forecast". It is quite the anti-thesis to your outside-context sufficiently rational actor proposing an optimal solution. Evolutionary processes cannot get you (or your society in this case) to your global optimal if you're currently stuck in a local optimal and you need to cross a valley of bad solutions which leaves you temporarily worse off then you currently are (I'm using global and local in terms of solution-space). Every step of the way needs to be better, or at least just as good, as the previous step and there's no leaping. If you're stuck in a local optimal, there has to be outside perturbation that jolts you out of the rut or the environment has to change in such a way as to create a path out of it. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat skeptical of utopian societies that requires a period of severe societal disruption where everything is worse off for everybody until you get to something better on the other side. People will just not be willing to enter and endure that period of "badness". Cultural evolution might be able to "forecast" and "leap", but I'm not an expert in this aspect and I'm still somewhat skeptical due to my background.
There is also no guarantee that evolution makes things better for a society's individuals. Evolution just tells us that traits that work out better than your competitor tends to be retained and get passed on to the next generation. It may be that societal traits of liberal democracy is currently more competitive, but if the environment changes in such a way to favour authoritarian regimes then that is what will survive and spread. Drones in a beehive lives a pretty crappy life, all considering, but bees are one of the most successful insect species. Evolution is amoral in that sense. Whenever I see evolution being used as if it was some sort of universal force that promotes the well-being of everybody, it really annoys me.
Now, our ethics is certainly a product of evolution and a solution reached by game theory. We have a strong incentive to cooperate with our in-group and we have evolved mechanisms which tells us to punish members of our in-group which refuses to cooperate. But there is also strong evolutionary incentive to poorly treat an out-group with whom we do not come into contact regularly. What worries me a lot is that it seems the world is currently moving in a direction where in-groups and out-groups are becoming very strongly defined.
Sorry for the rambling, but as a biologist, proper understanding of evolution is one of my pet peeves.
The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
You are simply not talking about what I'm talking about. You're echoing my words without understanding what they refer to. And to be blunt, I'm not interested in trying to teach evolutionary ethics to someone who's going to fight me every step of the way. So let this one go. If you're truly interested in the topic, you can start by reading Leviathan and The Origin of Species, then maybe a modern synthesis like Darwin's Dangerous Idea or The Better Angels of Our Nature.
Sorry that you cannot see how they relate, especially in contrast to the topic at hand of libertarianism. I just wanted some examples or references to argue against your statement, like I did in counter, it might be a modern time example but it is still a part of "Social evolution". Others seem to have got it so I'll "let this one go." with you.
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
That might be the theory but the History of China, Russia and pretty much every other country that has implemented Communism has not cared about the little people. I'd suggest you take a look at the Great leap Backwards.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.
Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Evolutionary ethics is....difficult. Biological and social/cultural evolution can be quite different. For one, biological evolution does not "forecast". It is quite the anti-thesis to your outside-context sufficiently rational actor proposing an optimal solution.
You can talk about the sufficiently rational actor in biological evolution too. Remember, he's not real, he's just a way of illustrating that the laws of nature are objective and work the same way for everyone. He's the guy mapping the optimization landscape. The guy who, for example, looks at the physics of fluid dynamics and says, "Well, then, an efficient wing should look like this." And biological wings tend to converge on that design. Not because the rational actor caused them to, but because they're responding through evolutionary pressures to the same natural laws that he is reasoning about.
Evolutionary processes cannot get you (or your society in this case) to your global optimal if you're currently stuck in a local optimal and you need to cross a valley of bad solutions which leaves you temporarily worse off then you currently are (I'm using global and local in terms of solution-space). Every step of the way needs to be better, or at least just as good, as the previous step and there's no leaping. If you're stuck in a local optimal, there has to be outside perturbation that jolts you out of the rut or the environment has to change in such a way as to create a path out of it. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat skeptical of utopian societies that requires a period of severe societal disruption where everything is worse off for everybody until you get to something better on the other side. People will just not be willing to enter and endure that period of "badness". Cultural evolution might be able to "forecast" and "leap", but I'm not an expert in this aspect and I'm still somewhat skeptical due to my background.
It's certainly possible in principle to "forecast" and "leap" because, after all, we are dealing with humans who are capable of doing that. We even do it for biological evolution, with the selective breeding of domesticated organisms and now their direct genetic modification. But you're right to be skeptical that it's a major driving force in social evolution. Most humans through most of history lived their lives without thinking too hard about the ethical constitution of their societies. When people do think about it and try to give it a total overhaul, they do not seem to have thought about it very well -- communist revolutions and utopian societies, as you note, diverge in outcome from intention pretty radically and painfully. Which of course is natural selection at work again.
Those "revolutions" which can be chalked up as success stories, like the American one, are much more incremental in the changes they make, and so might be better analogized to biological evolution as mutations than leaps: they're trying out a nearby point on the optimization landscape to see if it's an improvement. Now, it can be said that unlike mutations these revolutions are intelligently directed. And yeah, they are. But given how badly the communists and utopians think about this stuff, it may not be wise to assume the incrementalists are thinking about it any better. A cynic could argue that revolutionaries push their societies in effectively random directions, and if some incremental revolutions are successful it's only because they're not trying to leap across an optimization chasm.
There is also no guarantee that evolution makes things better for a society's individuals. Evolution just tells us that traits that work out better than your competitor tends to be retained and get passed on to the next generation. It may be that societal traits of liberal democracy is currently more competitive, but if the environment changes in such a way to favour authoritarian regimes then that is what will survive and spread. Drones in a beehive lives a pretty crappy life, all considering, but bees are one of the most successful insect species. Evolution is amoral in that sense. Whenever I see evolution being used as if it was some sort of universal force that promotes the well-being of everybody, it really annoys me.
Sure. But the empirical evidence is that liberal democracy is more competitive than authoritarianism. And I don't think that's just a happy accident of the current environment. Humans aren't bees. Individuals are highly intelligent and autonomous, actively pursuing their personal desires for well-being. When a system doesn't let them do what they want, they resist. This fact in and of itself constitutes a selection pressure in favor of freedom and individual dignity, and it's not going to change as long as humans are humans.
Now, our ethics is certainly a product of evolution and a solution reached by game theory. We have a strong incentive to cooperate with our in-group and we have evolved mechanisms which tells us to punish members of our in-group which refuses to cooperate. But there is also strong evolutionary incentive to poorly treat an out-group with whom we do not come into contact regularly. What worries me a lot is that it seems the world is currently moving in a direction where in-groups and out-groups are becoming very strongly defined.
I see the general trend as in-groups enlarging, and in-group/out-group divides breaking down. With travel and mass media there are fewer and fewer out-groups with whom we do not come into contact regularly. I'm not going to pretend the current resurgence of populist nationalism in America and Europe isn't troubling, but it's also a flash in the pan historically speaking. Get back to me in a half-century or so, but right now I'm far from convinced that it constitutes a reversal of the liberalizing trend.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I see the general trend as in-groups enlarging, and in-group/out-group divides breaking down. With travel and mass media there are fewer and fewer out-groups with whom we do not come into contact regularly. I'm not going to pretend the current resurgence of populist nationalism in America and Europe isn't troubling, but it's also a flash in the pan historically speaking. Get back to me in a half-century or so, but right now I'm far from convinced that it constitutes a reversal of the liberalizing trend.
It's also worth noting that this resurgence of populist nationalism is largely a backlash to the liberalizing trend, as well as to globalism as a whole. The reason this is happening is indeed because of people noticing the general trend and seeking to counter it (making this the very rare example of an "exception that proves the norm" under the common modern definition of "prove").
Really, no exchange of ideas and no changing of attitudes works in a straight line. And we must remember that in the cases of Trump and Brexit, the youth votes of both the US and Britain were both predominantly opposed.
I'm rather confused about this talk of evolution. Should not evolution be responsible for all of human nature, whether it be our better nature or worse? Thus, shouldn't the capacity to be tribal, factional, and exclusionary also be argued as evolutionary?
Yep. Evolution's got to do at least some of it, because any species with a murder rate higher than its birth rate is going to do pretty poorly in the Darwin sweepstakes.
And there's social evolution as well as biological evolution. Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear.
Cultures that promote their members well-being, through communism or socialism tend to collapse, or many deaths involved. Look at USSR, Venezuela, Nazi-Germany, Mao China
These are country that really didn't promote their members well being. Nazi Germany, USSR and Mao China killed millions.
But look at the Nordic countries today, who use a social democracy model.
The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis). And now with this shutting down of free speech, or calling it 'fake news' it has defiantly gone more socialist.
Australia isn't in a recession, although it is possible we'll be in one next year.
But it isn't because the government has become more socialist because have you seen our government? They are pretty aggresssively attempting to reduce the social programs the government carries out.
Indeed, if one were to draw terrible conclusions on short-term data, as you seem to be want to do, one would suggest our (mostly non existant) problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist.
Also telling people the news they are sharing is fake isn't supressing their free speech, it's trying to educate them.
The freer the culture the better they tend to expand and survive and improvements in overall quality of life; USA, Australia, S Korea, Today China. You have no reference or examples... for your 'argument'.
Australia and China today are more socialist than Nazi Germany was.
Yes, and we can see the decrease in living standards happening now with this government debt bubble recession soon to be a depression (2018). Australia n China (not Mao) have not gone to the lengths of killing off a race (Jews) to extract their gold and other assets(Nazis).
And nobody is arguing anything that suggests killing of a race and taking the stuff to be good so I only see that supporting the idea that government control is (EDIT: not) harmful with such a reason to fall back on.
And Australian Living Standards have only declined by very small amount over the past few years (around 0.6%), especially compared to the more than 50% growth over the past few decades overall. It's mostly stagnating, not declining.
The growth over the last few decades I would say Australia was more free economy. And this decline is happening because we are becoming more socialist. The stats support my view.
Explain how. Show me the stats. Although, spoiler: You can't because they don't exist.
I'm rather confused about this talk of evolution. Should not evolution be responsible for all of human nature, whether it be our better nature or worse? Thus, shouldn't the capacity to be tribal, factional, and exclusionary also be argued as evolutionary?
It definitely* is. But it's not the ethical part of our nature, any more than the shape of our eyes is ethical. "Ethics" is the label we've chosen for this one particular part of our nature.
*Science is never definite.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.
The trend is stagnation of growth, not decline.
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
Australia isn't in a recession, although it is possible we'll be in one next year.
But it isn't because the government has become more socialist because have you seen our government? They are pretty aggresssively attempting to reduce the social programs the government carries out.
Indeed, if one were to draw terrible conclusions on short-term data, as you seem to be want to do, one would suggest our (mostly non existant) problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist.
Also telling people the news they are sharing is fake isn't supressing their free speech, it's trying to educate them.
Government debt is still going up they haven't done anything. They dollar is losing its value. Long term data! Government spending is a socialist thing.
To tell them it is fake without reason is dumbing them down, it is comparable to religious speak. Educating them would go into reason why it could be fake.
"problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist."
Explain how. Like I have said, the freer and less regulations the easier it is to do business and grow the economy and standards of living.
Explain how. Show me the stats. Although, spoiler: You can't because they don't exist.
Some of my remarks above explain how. Through inflation, government spending, our standards of living decline, population density increase.
over the long term the government is always growing and therefore becoming more socialist. Back in the day poor people couldn't have so many kids, now they get paid to have kids and more people go on government support.
That might be the theory but the History of China, Russia and pretty much every other country that has implemented Communism has not cared about the little people. I'd suggest you take a look at the Great leap Backwards.
I don't think we will ever see a country where communism is implemented where the government will care for its people.
I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.
Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.
The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power. not sure about the Jews, I think Hitler wrote about them in his book, being part of an international banking conspiracy and starting world war 1. And the Gypsies probably weren't targets as well till after he came to power, they could have been brainwashed by his propaganda and some might have supported him...
The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.
I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.
Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.
The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power.
But Hitler ultimately wanted to attack and weaken Russia. He had that planned.
The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.
The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.
I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.
Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.
The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power. not sure about the Jews, I think Hitler wrote about them in his book, being part of an international banking conspiracy and starting world war 1. And the Gypsies probably weren't targets as well till after he came to power, they could have been brainwashed by his propaganda and some might have supported him...
I think you will find that Mein Kampf was written long before Hitler came to power. And actually was written at a time where is was possible that he might never have come to power. Likewise in the same book he expressed his hatred for the Communists and his plan to get living space to the east. The Von Ribbentrop Pact was a very temporary measure solely designed to stop the Russians interfering in Poland.
The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.
No the Nazi's got into power because the Weimar Republic got bored of instituting Dictatorial Measures followed by a fresh election every 6 months and they wanted some one that just might be able to make it slightly longer between elections and could easily be controlled. That unfortunately didn't work that well when they picked Hitler to be their puppet figurehead in the Reichstag.
At this point I should inform you that the NSDAP was a minority party in the Reichstag at the time, it was only after Hitler got given the Chancellorship did they start getting any appreciable power.
And before you continue with your claim that the Nazi war machine was designed to protect the German People, it wasn't it was built up solely to piss all over the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler loathed. This being the same justification Hitler used in his initial moves which ultimately lead to WW2.
And I see that you have backtracked over your claim that their socialist policies were the major reason Nazi Germany Collapsed. Good now apply the lesson that arguing with the historical record is a bad thing to the rest of your arguments and come back to us.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The argument that the holocaust is what happens when you care about people is a great example of the mental game of twister that Libertarians have to consciously perform. Even if building a military was established as a bad thing, that wouldn't demonstrate that caring about people is bad. It would just mean that building a military is a bad way to help people.
The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.
They were promised employment. So that will help them individually.
No the Nazi's got into power because the Weimar Republic got bored of instituting Dictatorial Measures followed by a fresh election every 6 months and they wanted some one that just might be able to make it slightly longer between elections and could easily be controlled. That unfortunately didn't work that well when they picked Hitler to be their puppet figurehead in the Reichstag.
At this point I should inform you that the NSDAP was a minority party in the Reichstag at the time, it was only after Hitler got given the Chancellorship did they start getting any appreciable power.
And before you continue with your claim that the Nazi war machine was designed to protect the German People, it wasn't it was built up solely to piss all over the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler loathed. This being the same justification Hitler used in his initial moves which ultimately lead to WW2.
'Stability' of government is for the 'well-being' of the people. (or do you think an unstable one is better for the people? It might be, and I could probably argue that it could be.)
Getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles will be for the 'well-being' of the people. (Or do you think sending your currency overseas is good for the local economy?)
If they are getting rid of the Treaty then defending it and creating employment then this is for the 'well-being' of the people.
And I see that you have backtracked over your claim that their socialist policies were the major reason Nazi Germany Collapsed. Good now apply the lesson that arguing with the historical record is a bad thing to the rest of your arguments and come back to us.
I have suggested that the physical reason would have been the bombing, but what lead them to getting bombed could have been their social policies (as described above) that wanted to look after the 'well-being' off the people. And your last little bit of spew is getting a bit 'smart', keep it civil plz. (I wonder if 'debate' is about finding truth or shaming the opposition.)
Socialism and communism are set up to look after the 'well-being' of people and fail. Capitalism is set up to look after self interests and succeeds. We have had the highest standards of living increases from capital investment.
The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.
They were promised employment. So that will help them individually.
Some people were promised employment. Employment was being offered for 'true Germans'. Jews, homosexuals and people with serious disabilities were being excluded pretty early on- it just got worse over time.
'Stability' of government is for the 'well-being' of the people. (or do you think an unstable one is better for the people? It might be, and I could probably argue that it could be.)
Getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles will be for the 'well-being' of the people. (Or do you think sending your currency overseas is good for the local economy?)
If they are getting rid of the Treaty then defending it and creating employment then this is for the 'well-being' of the people.
Just because they did things which aided, and gave some interest in, public wellbeing, doesn't seem they were fundamentally concerned with it.
If they were, they wouldn't have been so obviously concerned with specifically denying people their wellbeing because they didn't consider them worthy of it.
Socialism and communism are set up to look after the 'well-being' of people and fail. Capitalism is set up to look after self interests and succeeds. We have had the highest standards of living increases from capital investment.
Socialism is not a specific system but a political orientation. It's actively involved in the politics of most Western countries, and the Nordic countries mainly run with it. They have yet to fail.
Communism failed, in part, because like Nazism it didn't actually look after the public wellbeing even though Communism was in theory more concerned with it. But there was an obsession with destroying anything that was thought to go against or threaten the communist vision. That communist vision is supposed to be good for the public wellbeing, but the system isn't, or at least hasn't been, actually able to maintain that vision without going against public wellbeing.
Capitalism is setup to promote individual wellbeing by promoting freedom, and general economic prosperity which usually to mean good public wellbeing. Capitalism is also concerned with public wellbeing, and modern capitalist societies very much are.
The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.
The trend is stagnation of growth, not decline.
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.
The communists cannot be in fault for caring more about their idea of society then some group of individuals because that's what every political party do.
Their fault was not lack of empathy or social apathy, but underestimating the role freedom of speech, thought, trade and enterprise play in human development.
Modern day socialism is expanding because it recognizes those things and even claim to actively promote then (if this claim holds is sort of the central political debate of our age).
I wasn't saying you were talking about socialism, I was saying you didn't add any references or examples. You just blanketed. I was giving some examples of where the 'well-being' of people was looked after in the terms of socialism and communism and had failed. But could you add some references or examples to your 'argument'/statement.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
The growth over the last few decades I would say Australia was more free economy. And this decline is happening because we are becoming more socialist. The stats support my view.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
The stats show a tiny decline over the last few years- do you really think that's telling of any major upheaval? Because it's not.
I have also yet to see a single shred of evidence that this has anything to do with socialistic policies.
I don't think we have been getting significantly more socialist in policy in this time anyway.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Me, two posts before what you quoted, because you didn't read the thread for context like I told you to (not that you should even need to be told): "I will say that we do have some instinctive recognition for human rights in the form of our moral sense, because evolution has been chugging away at this same problem for millions of years."
A little bit earlier: "Give Hobbes and Locke another look -- especially Hobbes. Rights aren't just any old social contract; they are the optimizing contract. Think of human society as a math problem and rights as the solution."
You think I may have been talking about human rights, perhaps? "Life, liberty, and property" and all that?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Speaking of examples, I'd still love to get some examples of people being executed in modern Australia for the crime of tax evasion.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I was providing examples of how societies that looked after well-being tend to fail, using examples of different scale. (It was a counter argument, not that you should even need to be told how to argue)
Alright... and how do these relate to; "Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear." How are they doing better from "Human rights" and "moral sense" and expanding. I can't see how you have argued that these things are allowing to survive and expand. Rights are constantly violated when expansion is needed. Government will forcefully buy out any property for expansion as in China and has happened here in Adelaide with the Southern Express way/Port rd expansion.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Still don't see an example backing up your claim about people being executed as punishment for tax evasion. Since you've failed to demonstrate this repeatedly now, I'll assume you're incapable of coming up with an example and are tactfully surrendering the point.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I would love to know what metrics you were using when you worked out that Mao's China and Hilter's Germany cared about their populations.
And also how you are able to conclusively blame the collapse of Nazi Germany to that aforementioned caring about the German Population.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Evolutionary ethics is....difficult. Biological and social/cultural evolution can be quite different. For one, biological evolution does not "forecast". It is quite the anti-thesis to your outside-context sufficiently rational actor proposing an optimal solution. Evolutionary processes cannot get you (or your society in this case) to your global optimal if you're currently stuck in a local optimal and you need to cross a valley of bad solutions which leaves you temporarily worse off then you currently are (I'm using global and local in terms of solution-space). Every step of the way needs to be better, or at least just as good, as the previous step and there's no leaping. If you're stuck in a local optimal, there has to be outside perturbation that jolts you out of the rut or the environment has to change in such a way as to create a path out of it. This is one of the reasons I'm somewhat skeptical of utopian societies that requires a period of severe societal disruption where everything is worse off for everybody until you get to something better on the other side. People will just not be willing to enter and endure that period of "badness". Cultural evolution might be able to "forecast" and "leap", but I'm not an expert in this aspect and I'm still somewhat skeptical due to my background.
There is also no guarantee that evolution makes things better for a society's individuals. Evolution just tells us that traits that work out better than your competitor tends to be retained and get passed on to the next generation. It may be that societal traits of liberal democracy is currently more competitive, but if the environment changes in such a way to favour authoritarian regimes then that is what will survive and spread. Drones in a beehive lives a pretty crappy life, all considering, but bees are one of the most successful insect species. Evolution is amoral in that sense. Whenever I see evolution being used as if it was some sort of universal force that promotes the well-being of everybody, it really annoys me.
Now, our ethics is certainly a product of evolution and a solution reached by game theory. We have a strong incentive to cooperate with our in-group and we have evolved mechanisms which tells us to punish members of our in-group which refuses to cooperate. But there is also strong evolutionary incentive to poorly treat an out-group with whom we do not come into contact regularly. What worries me a lot is that it seems the world is currently moving in a direction where in-groups and out-groups are becoming very strongly defined.
Sorry for the rambling, but as a biologist, proper understanding of evolution is one of my pet peeves.
Trends can be seen to predict the future. More government debt = more social policies, debt is increasing in US and Aus and other places. More debt is more money in the system, stealing from the value of your dollars which will decease living standards as you cannot buy as much. I would say things like Obama care and the increase in debt is a sign of becoming more socialist in policy.
Isn't that, the point of communism and socialism to care about the people? -I guess I am being assumptious here. The Nazis did brag about their high employment rate, even though they were doing next to nothing.
Building war machines is done to protect the population. It is caring for the population wanting to defend them.
Sorry that you cannot see how they relate, especially in contrast to the topic at hand of libertarianism. I just wanted some examples or references to argue against your statement, like I did in counter, it might be a modern time example but it is still a part of "Social evolution". Others seem to have got it so I'll "let this one go." with you.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
That might be the theory but the History of China, Russia and pretty much every other country that has implemented Communism has not cared about the little people. I'd suggest you take a look at the Great leap Backwards.
I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, Gays and Communists were really greatful for the protection granted to them by the overly complicated German warmachine. The Warmachine that also wasn't being created to defend the sections of the German Population that Hitler liked, rather to agressively dismantle a Peace treaty he didn't like and then in the acquistion of Living Space for the superior Aryan Race.
Oh yeah you are still to demonstrate conclusively how that caring for the population is the sole or eveb main reason why Nazi Germany Collapsed.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
It's certainly possible in principle to "forecast" and "leap" because, after all, we are dealing with humans who are capable of doing that. We even do it for biological evolution, with the selective breeding of domesticated organisms and now their direct genetic modification. But you're right to be skeptical that it's a major driving force in social evolution. Most humans through most of history lived their lives without thinking too hard about the ethical constitution of their societies. When people do think about it and try to give it a total overhaul, they do not seem to have thought about it very well -- communist revolutions and utopian societies, as you note, diverge in outcome from intention pretty radically and painfully. Which of course is natural selection at work again.
Those "revolutions" which can be chalked up as success stories, like the American one, are much more incremental in the changes they make, and so might be better analogized to biological evolution as mutations than leaps: they're trying out a nearby point on the optimization landscape to see if it's an improvement. Now, it can be said that unlike mutations these revolutions are intelligently directed. And yeah, they are. But given how badly the communists and utopians think about this stuff, it may not be wise to assume the incrementalists are thinking about it any better. A cynic could argue that revolutionaries push their societies in effectively random directions, and if some incremental revolutions are successful it's only because they're not trying to leap across an optimization chasm.
Just some food for thought.
Sure. But the empirical evidence is that liberal democracy is more competitive than authoritarianism. And I don't think that's just a happy accident of the current environment. Humans aren't bees. Individuals are highly intelligent and autonomous, actively pursuing their personal desires for well-being. When a system doesn't let them do what they want, they resist. This fact in and of itself constitutes a selection pressure in favor of freedom and individual dignity, and it's not going to change as long as humans are humans.
I see the general trend as in-groups enlarging, and in-group/out-group divides breaking down. With travel and mass media there are fewer and fewer out-groups with whom we do not come into contact regularly. I'm not going to pretend the current resurgence of populist nationalism in America and Europe isn't troubling, but it's also a flash in the pan historically speaking. Get back to me in a half-century or so, but right now I'm far from convinced that it constitutes a reversal of the liberalizing trend.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Really, no exchange of ideas and no changing of attitudes works in a straight line. And we must remember that in the cases of Trump and Brexit, the youth votes of both the US and Britain were both predominantly opposed.
I'm rather confused about this talk of evolution. Should not evolution be responsible for all of human nature, whether it be our better nature or worse? Thus, shouldn't the capacity to be tribal, factional, and exclusionary also be argued as evolutionary?
Australia isn't in a recession, although it is possible we'll be in one next year.
But it isn't because the government has become more socialist because have you seen our government? They are pretty aggresssively attempting to reduce the social programs the government carries out.
Indeed, if one were to draw terrible conclusions on short-term data, as you seem to be want to do, one would suggest our (mostly non existant) problems are caused by the government being *less* socialist.
Also telling people the news they are sharing is fake isn't supressing their free speech, it's trying to educate them.
Explain how. Show me the stats. Although, spoiler: You can't because they don't exist.
*Science is never definite.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The trend is stagnation of growth, not decline.
All three only cared about people they judged to be worthy. That's what made them atrocious- they were content to abuse and kill masses of people because they decided they were a threat to their image of society.
Communism was supposed to care for the people- that's the problem, it didn't, the people who actually put the system in place and managed it (at least most of them) cared more about their idea of society than actual individuals wellbeing.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Government debt is still going up they haven't done anything. They dollar is losing its value. Long term data! Government spending is a socialist thing.
To tell them it is fake without reason is dumbing them down, it is comparable to religious speak. Educating them would go into reason why it could be fake.
Explain how. Like I have said, the freer and less regulations the easier it is to do business and grow the economy and standards of living.
Some of my remarks above explain how. Through inflation, government spending, our standards of living decline, population density increase.
http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/
http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html
http://goldsilverworlds.com/gold-and-silver-prices-over-200-years-long-term-gold-and-silver-charts/
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/855e6f87080d2e1aca2570ec000c8e5f!OpenDocument
"Between August 1966 and August 2000 the number of unemployed Australians increased from 90,300 to 596,000."
Holden and Ford shutting down. There are less full time jobs, and most of the jobs growth is in the service sector with part time jobs.
over the long term the government is always growing and therefore becoming more socialist. Back in the day poor people couldn't have so many kids, now they get paid to have kids and more people go on government support.
I don't think we will ever see a country where communism is implemented where the government will care for its people.
The warmachine was not there till after Hitler came to power. Communists Russia was allied with the Nazis for a bit, the communists would have been safe in Hitlers rise to power. not sure about the Jews, I think Hitler wrote about them in his book, being part of an international banking conspiracy and starting world war 1. And the Gypsies probably weren't targets as well till after he came to power, they could have been brainwashed by his propaganda and some might have supported him...
The Nazis or National Socialists, got in power because they were promised a prosperous nation. The people were promised 'well-being' and is't how they were able to go to war. It might not be the main reason for the collapse, (which could just be bombing by the allies.) but it was a part of how they got there.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
But Hitler ultimately wanted to attack and weaken Russia. He had that planned.
The people were never really promised that all their individual well-being would be improved or even protected. They were promised a strong and powerful nation, and in many ways that is what they got- but at the great expense of individual well-being.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I think you will find that Mein Kampf was written long before Hitler came to power. And actually was written at a time where is was possible that he might never have come to power. Likewise in the same book he expressed his hatred for the Communists and his plan to get living space to the east. The Von Ribbentrop Pact was a very temporary measure solely designed to stop the Russians interfering in Poland.
No the Nazi's got into power because the Weimar Republic got bored of instituting Dictatorial Measures followed by a fresh election every 6 months and they wanted some one that just might be able to make it slightly longer between elections and could easily be controlled. That unfortunately didn't work that well when they picked Hitler to be their puppet figurehead in the Reichstag.
At this point I should inform you that the NSDAP was a minority party in the Reichstag at the time, it was only after Hitler got given the Chancellorship did they start getting any appreciable power.
And before you continue with your claim that the Nazi war machine was designed to protect the German People, it wasn't it was built up solely to piss all over the Treaty of Versailles which Hitler loathed. This being the same justification Hitler used in his initial moves which ultimately lead to WW2.
And I see that you have backtracked over your claim that their socialist policies were the major reason Nazi Germany Collapsed. Good now apply the lesson that arguing with the historical record is a bad thing to the rest of your arguments and come back to us.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
This is a new level of facepalm.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
They were promised employment. So that will help them individually.
'Stability' of government is for the 'well-being' of the people. (or do you think an unstable one is better for the people? It might be, and I could probably argue that it could be.)
Getting rid of the Treaty of Versailles will be for the 'well-being' of the people. (Or do you think sending your currency overseas is good for the local economy?)
If they are getting rid of the Treaty then defending it and creating employment then this is for the 'well-being' of the people.
I have suggested that the physical reason would have been the bombing, but what lead them to getting bombed could have been their social policies (as described above) that wanted to look after the 'well-being' off the people. And your last little bit of spew is getting a bit 'smart', keep it civil plz. (I wonder if 'debate' is about finding truth or shaming the opposition.)
Socialism and communism are set up to look after the 'well-being' of people and fail. Capitalism is set up to look after self interests and succeeds. We have had the highest standards of living increases from capital investment.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Some people were promised employment. Employment was being offered for 'true Germans'. Jews, homosexuals and people with serious disabilities were being excluded pretty early on- it just got worse over time.
Just because they did things which aided, and gave some interest in, public wellbeing, doesn't seem they were fundamentally concerned with it.
If they were, they wouldn't have been so obviously concerned with specifically denying people their wellbeing because they didn't consider them worthy of it.
Socialism is not a specific system but a political orientation. It's actively involved in the politics of most Western countries, and the Nordic countries mainly run with it. They have yet to fail.
Communism failed, in part, because like Nazism it didn't actually look after the public wellbeing even though Communism was in theory more concerned with it. But there was an obsession with destroying anything that was thought to go against or threaten the communist vision. That communist vision is supposed to be good for the public wellbeing, but the system isn't, or at least hasn't been, actually able to maintain that vision without going against public wellbeing.
Capitalism is setup to promote individual wellbeing by promoting freedom, and general economic prosperity which usually to mean good public wellbeing. Capitalism is also concerned with public wellbeing, and modern capitalist societies very much are.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Assume that the nazi policies were positive for society. However, nazi policies were negative for society. Contradiction!"
No. Seriously, this is just crazytown.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
It's impossible to care about individuals well being without some sort of idea of society. From the point of view of the government, it's very difficult to help someone without hurt someone else. To favor some you must screw others and the choice of who to help and who to screw makes part of what an 'idea of society' is.
The communists cannot be in fault for caring more about their idea of society then some group of individuals because that's what every political party do.
Their fault was not lack of empathy or social apathy, but underestimating the role freedom of speech, thought, trade and enterprise play in human development.
Modern day socialism is expanding because it recognizes those things and even claim to actively promote then (if this claim holds is sort of the central political debate of our age).
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras