"Religious Liberty" ?

[ether-ore]

I am not arguing for socialism. I am arguing against your obvious straw-man argument. I know the historical outcomes of communist/socialist governments. Lenin saw the danger himself, and warned against Stalin gaining control after his death. Not surprising.

My point is that you are not arguing with "socialism", you are arguing with fascism, which seems to be the end result of socialistic governments in the real world. "Socialism" is a term that describes a certain form of government. Thus, it cannot be a "lie" simply because it doesn't seem to work in the real world. It is a concept. And, you aren't providing any solid reasoning as to why you think that the Nazis were a "socialist" party, beyond their self-naming.

In the definition you provided, the inherent lie concerning socialism is that it is owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The key word there is "community" and that is the lie. Whoever wrote that definition was being very clever because in every socialist experiment, it is the government that owns and regulates everything. They always say that they represent and speak for the community, but the people in general have little or no say in what is done. The people follow orders. You say I'm putting up a straw man. I suggest that you are putting forth a concept that can never be realized and for you to hold to that definition which has not and will never truly exist, or worse expect me to acknowledge that it is a real thing, I find a bit ludicrous. I'm talking about reality and you are talking platitudes. But even so, participation in socialism is not and would never be voluntary. One is always compelled to participate.

In answer to you request though, you may find this article interesting. https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

 

[leibowde84]

In the definition you provided, the inherent lie concerning socialism is that it is owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The key word there is "community" and that is the lie. Whoever wrote that definition was being very clever because in every socialist experiment, it is the government that owns and regulates everything. They always say that they represent and speak for the community, but the people in general have little or no say in what is done. The people follow orders. You say I'm putting up a straw man. I suggest that you are putting forth a concept that can never be realized and for you to hold to that definition which has not and will never truly exist, or worse expect me to acknowledge that it is a real thing, I find a bit ludicrous. I'm talking about reality and you are talking platitudes. But even so, participation in socialism is not and would never be voluntary. One is always compelled to participate.

In answer to you request though, you may find this article interesting. https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

No, it's not a lie, it is your confirmation bias. You want socialism to be something different than what it actually is. If the "community is not regulating", the form of government in question simply isn't "socialism". Even your cited article has a nonsensical name, as "socialism" is a completely different form of government than "totalitarianism". Sure, socialist governments can EVOLVE or CHANGE into other forms of government ... no argument there. But, that in no way changes the meaning of the terms in question. Let's say the Muslim Brotherhood had their way and stayed in power to create a theocracy. They, of course, started as a democracy, as the Brotherhood was democratically elected, but it wouldn't alter the meaning of the term "democracy" to mean government under religious beliefs or clerics.

Basically, you are suggesting that we define terms by those who use them incorrectly. For example, Stalin's Russia, while claiming to be "communist" or "socialist" was, in actuality, a complete contradiction to the system of government termed "socialism". Now, I agree that "communism" doesn't work in the real world. But, that doesn't mean that we should change the term to match what was put in place in the USSR. Stalin went against Trotsky and Lenin's "socialism" intentionally and never looked back. Thus, it seems completely unreasonable to blame socialism, a well-defined system of government, for the actions of those who, in actuality, had nothing to do with it.

This is an explanation from Chomsky that helps to illustrate (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm):

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

 

[ether-ore]

No, it's not a lie, it is your confirmation bias. You want socialism to be something different than what it actually is. If the "community is not regulating", the form of government in question simply isn't "socialism". Even your cited article has a nonsensical name, as "socialism" is a completely different form of government than "totalitarianism". Sure, socialist governments can EVOLVE or CHANGE into other forms of government ... no argument there. But, that in no way changes the meaning of the terms in question. Let's say the Muslim Brotherhood had their way and stayed in power to create a theocracy. They, of course, started as a democracy, as the Brotherhood was democratically elected, but it wouldn't alter the meaning of the term "democracy" to mean government under religious beliefs or clerics.

Basically, you are suggesting that we define terms by those who use them incorrectly. For example, Stalin's Russia, while claiming to be "communist" or "socialist" was, in actuality, a complete contradiction to the system of government termed "socialism". Now, I agree that "communism" doesn't work in the real world. But, that doesn't mean that we should change the term to match what was put in place in the USSR. Stalin went against Trotsky and Lenin's "socialism" intentionally and never looked back. Thus, it seems completely unreasonable to blame socialism, a well-defined system of government, for the actions of those who, in actuality, had nothing to do with it.

This is an explanation from Chomsky that helps to illustrate (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm):

"When the world's two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and molded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist -- surely any serious Marxist -- should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism."

You are insisting on definitions and I am insisting on what is. You mentioned the fact that governments can evolve. I say that they do evolve and that a population having been sold a bill of goods concerning the "definition" of socialism (which is non-voluntary even in its basic definition); that system will immediately evolve (or perhaps 'devolve' is a better word) into a totalitarian form of government. You can shout definitions all day long. I am more concerned with practice and what people in power will do.

I do not believe "the socialist ideal" is deserving of any respect for the simple reason that you cannot say no to it. What the definition of socialism amounts to is a weasel word designed to get the gullible masses under control.

As much as you seem to love socialism as is evidenced by your defense of it, you will never convince me that it is a good thing and I will fight against it to my dying breath.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are insisting on definitions and I am insisting on what is. You mentioned the fact that governments can evolve. I say that they do evolve and that a population having been sold a bill of goods concerning the "definition" of socialism (which is non-voluntary even in its basic definition); that system will immediately evolve (or perhaps 'devolve' is a better word) into a totalitarian form of government. You can shout definitions all day long. I am more concerned with practice and what people in power will do.

I do not believe "the socialist ideal" is deserving of any respect for the simple reason that you cannot say no to it. What the definition of socialism amounts to is a weasel word designed to get the gullible masses under control.

As much as you seem to love socialism as is evidenced by your defense of it, you will never convince me that it is a good thing and I will fight against it to my dying breath.

Do you support the removal of the court system? What of laws saying food has to have sell by dates on it? What of laws concerning the treatment of water and sewage? What of laws against pollution? What of the police? What of public education? What of public roads? Do you support any of the above?

 

[leibowde84]

You are insisting on definitions and I am insisting on what is. You mentioned the fact that governments can evolve. I say that they do evolve and that a population having been sold a bill of goods concerning the "definition" of socialism (which is non-voluntary even in its basic definition); that system will immediately evolve (or perhaps 'devolve' is a better word) into a totalitarian form of government. You can shout definitions all day long. I am more concerned with practice and what people in power will do.

I do not believe "the socialist ideal" is deserving of any respect for the simple reason that you cannot say no to it. What the definition of socialism amounts to is a weasel word designed to get the gullible masses under control.

As much as you seem to love socialism as is evidenced by your defense of it, you will never convince me that it is a good thing and I will fight against it to my dying breath.

When did I ever defend socialism as a "good thing"? Please cite, as I am not a socialist. I just think that the meanings of terms should not be changed to better suit arguments against anything.

 

[leibowde84]

You are insisting on definitions and I am insisting on what is. You mentioned the fact that governments can evolve. I say that they do evolve and that a population having been sold a bill of goods concerning the "definition" of socialism (which is non-voluntary even in its basic definition); that system will immediately evolve (or perhaps 'devolve' is a better word) into a totalitarian form of government. You can shout definitions all day long. I am more concerned with practice and what people in power will do.

I do not believe "the socialist ideal" is deserving of any respect for the simple reason that you cannot say no to it. What the definition of socialism amounts to is a weasel word designed to get the gullible masses under control.

As much as you seem to love socialism as is evidenced by your defense of it, you will never convince me that it is a good thing and I will fight against it to my dying breath.

When did I ever defend socialism as a "good thing"? Please cite, as I am not a socialist. I just think that the meanings of terms should not be changed to better suit arguments against anything.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You are insisting on definitions and I am insisting on what is. You mentioned the fact that governments can evolve. I say that they do evolve and that a population having been sold a bill of goods concerning the "definition" of socialism (which is non-voluntary even in its basic definition); that system will immediately evolve (or perhaps 'devolve' is a better word) into a totalitarian form of government. You can shout definitions all day long. I am more concerned with practice and what people in power will do.

I do not believe "the socialist ideal" is deserving of any respect for the simple reason that you cannot say no to it. What the definition of socialism amounts to is a weasel word designed to get the gullible masses under control.

As much as you seem to love socialism as is evidenced by your defense of it, you will never convince me that it is a good thing and I will fight against it to my dying breath.

Are you comfy with the idea of your employer paying you a dollar a day? Are you comfy with them being able to fire you without any notice or recourse to an employment tribunal? Are you happy to be dismissed because simply because you're not of the right skin colour or religion?

All such protections that stop these things are a result of socialist policies and unionising.

 

[ether-ore]

Do you support the removal of the court system? What of laws saying food has to have sell by dates on it? What of laws concerning the treatment of water and sewage? What of laws against pollution? What of the police? What of public education? What of public roads? Do you support any of the above?

Are you suggesting that we can't have good laws without socialism? There are legitimate functions of government which should be judiciously divided between the federal government and the various states. Most of what you mentioned should be under the auspices of state governments with the exception interstate highways. The original constitution established limits on the federal government. My position is that if it isn't expressly permitted by the original constitution, then the federal government has no business being involved and any other issues should be left to the consideration of the various states.

 

[ether-ore]

Are you comfy with the idea of your employer paying you a dollar a day? Are you comfy with them being able to fire you without any notice or recourse to an employment tribunal? Are you happy to be dismissed because simply because you're not of the right skin colour or religion?

All such protections that stop these things are a result of socialist policies and unionising.

I am in favor of a free market being allowed to establish what the market will bear. I hold this opinion while being unemployed. I was dismissed from Lipton Tea Company for not talking to a female during my break. She wanted to talk and I wanted to read my book... she complained that I was rude and I was fired. I had no recourse. As far as pay is concerned, it should be whatever the two parties have agreed on. I refer you to Matthew 20: 11-15:
11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

I am not fond of unions. They tend to bankrupt companies and turn out shoddy work.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Are you suggesting that we can't have good laws without socialism? There are legitimate functions of government which should be judiciously divided between the federal government and the various states. Most of what you mentioned should be under the auspices of state governments with the exception interstate highways. The original constitution established limits on the federal government. My position is that if it isn't expressly permitted by the original constitution, then the federal government has no business being involved and any other issues should be left to the consideration of the various states.

A legitimate function of government where a service is provided equally to the people is a form of socialism. Socialism is REQUIRED for a civilization. To what degree do we have socialism is the debate. Not if socialism itself is good or bad.

 

[ether-ore]

A legitimate function of government where a service is provided equally to the people is a form of socialism. Socialism is REQUIRED for a civilization. To what degree do we have socialism is the debate. Not if socialism itself is good or bad.

Sorry, you'll get no agreement with me on that. The federal government is restricted to what the constitution says its powers are. That should eliminate socialism on the federal level. The states can certainly entertain socialist ideas within their boundaries, which if they do, they can watch the mass exodus to other states. Or will you propose closed boundaries to force retention and compliance.

 

[icehorse]

Another county heard from...

Most western secular nations are socialist - to some degree. None are pure. I would also say that there are no pure capitalist states. The reality is that most western nations are somewhat capitalist and somewhat socialist - and the weightings differ a bit.

I've heard libertarians say they would propose pure capitalist nations, but there are fundamental questions I've never heard them answer well. How do you create safe machines and infrastructures? Do we let the free market build bridges that sometimes collapse? Presumably we'd gravitate towards those companies that build bridges that don't collapse? ha!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Sorry, you'll get no agreement with me on that. The federal government is restricted to what the constitution says its powers are. That should eliminate socialism on the federal level. The states can certainly entertain socialist ideas within their boundaries, which if they do, they can watch the mass exodus to other states. Or will you propose closed boundaries to force retention and compliance.

What are the limitations set up by the constitution? I keep hearing this argument but I've never seen anyone actually point out the part of the constitution, a federal no...THE federal document that is the backbone of our country.

 

[ether-ore]

What are the limitations set up by the constitution? I keep hearing this argument but I've never seen anyone actually point out the part of the constitution, a federal no...THE federal document that is the backbone of our country.

I must admit I'm a bit confused by your sentence structure. Are you asking me to type the entire contents of the Constitution, because in it is defined the separation of powers, the check and balances and the defined powers of the federal government. It also says within the constitution that all powers not expressly given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the various states.

As for the federal government being the back of our country, I will say that it has defined powers along with check and balances in order to keep it under control so that it would not be destructive of the liberties and rights of the people. Rather than use the word 'backbone', I would say that its defined powers are important and necessary. If the federal government stayed within its bounds, the various states can do the rest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It also says within the constitution that all powers not expressly given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the various states.

Is that why Washington signed some executive orders, giving the federal government authority not bestowed upon it by the Constitution? Even on day one, the Founders and Framers realized they left some things out, and took action that many today who are all about "reserved to the various states" would disagree with, but they are also all into "original intent."

 

[Nakosis]

A legitimate function of government where a service is provided equally to the people is a form of socialism. Socialism is REQUIRED for a civilization. To what degree do we have socialism is the debate. Not if socialism itself is good or bad.

How is this a form of socialism?

Socialism is were the community as a whole shares ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is private ownership of that means of production. It doesn't take socialism to regulate production.

 

[Nakosis]

Is that why Washington signed some executive orders, giving the federal government authority not bestowed upon it by the Constitution? Even on day one, the Founders and Framers realized they left some things out, and took action that many today who are all about "reserved to the various states" would disagree with, but they are also all into "original intent."

Which of those orders limited a states right to internal governance?

 

[dust1n]

Individual conflicts that can be distinguished within this topic include:

• Conflicts immediately connected with the Reformation of the 1520s to 1540s:
  • The German Peasants' War (1524–1525)
  • The battle of Kappel in Switzerland (1531)
  • The Schmalkaldic War (1546–1547) in the Holy Roman Empire
• The Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) in the Low Countries
• The French Wars of Religion (1562–1598)
• The Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), affecting the Holy Roman Empire including Habsburg Austria and Bohemia,France, Denmark and Sweden
• The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639–1651), affecting England, Scotland and Ireland
  • Scottish Reformation and Civil Wars
  • English Reformation and Civil War
  • Irish Confederate Wars and the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

Although later wars such as the Nine Years' War (1688–97) had a religious component that was important locally in some arenas, they were more fundamentally undertaken for political reasons, with coalitions forming across religious divisions. Purely political motivations and cross-religious alliances were also significant in many of the earlier wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

~John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” 1787-1788

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

~Founding Father John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88)

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

“I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799

“Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual.

State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”

~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.”

~Founding Father James Madison; Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical
Endowments

“When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

~Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

“Knowledge and liberty are so prevalent in this country, that I do not believe that the United States would ever be disposed to establish one religious sect, and lay all others under legal disabilities. But as we know not what may take place hereafter, and any such test would be exceedingly injurious to the rights of free citizens, I cannot think it altogether superfluous to have added a clause, which secures us from the possibility of such oppression.”

~Founding Father Oliver Wolcott, Connecticut Ratifying Convention, 9 January 1788

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”

~Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man, 1791

The American states have gone far in assisting the progress of truth; but they have stopped short of perfection. They ought to have given every honest citizen an equal right to enjoy his religion and an equal title to all civil emoluments, without obliging him to tell his religion. Every interference of the civil power in regulating opinion, is an impious attempt to take the business of the Deity out of his own hands; and every preference given to any religious denomination, is so far slavery and bigotry.”

~Founding Father Noah Webster, calling for no religious tests to serve in public office, Sketches of American Policy, 1785

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I must admit I'm a bit confused by your sentence structure. Are you asking me to type the entire contents of the Constitution, because in it is defined the separation of powers, the check and balances and the defined powers of the federal government. It also says within the constitution that all powers not expressly given to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the various states.

As for the federal government being the back of our country, I will say that it has defined powers along with check and balances in order to keep it under control so that it would not be destructive of the liberties and rights of the people. Rather than use the word 'backbone', I would say that its defined powers are important and necessary. If the federal government stayed within its bounds, the various states can do the rest.

I'm asking for a simple quote in the constitution where it explicitly or implicitly depicts a power that the federal government should not have that it currently has. Its easy to say "well the constitution this..." or "the constitution that...". When it comes down to it most of the time people don't actually have a specific portion in mind and simply went along with a generalized feeling of what they thought or think the constitution should be or said. What are the "bounds" that it has crossed? What articles do they list them?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How is this a form of socialism?

Socialism is were the community as a whole shares ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is private ownership of that means of production. It doesn't take socialism to regulate production.

Capitalist police forces don't work out well for example. It is products or services. It doesn't have to be a production of something physical that is used but rather the public service that is a shared ownership. Capitalism and socialism are not conflicting terms always.