What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

[Frank Merton]

I don't bother with responsese that break up my argument into small pieces and then respond to them out of context. I don't even read them.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I don't bother with responsese that break up my argument into small pieces and then respond to them out of context. I don't even read them.

You don't wanna be right, nuthin' much I can say anyway.

 

[Papoon]

You have invented a definition of freedom of religion to avoid what it really means. No freedom is without restrictions and bounds.

Freedom is embracing reciprocal maintenance.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Freedom is embracing reciprocal maintenance.

I have no idea what that means, or maybe I'm afraid I might know and stuck my head in the sand.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

BTW, I think my point about there being no capitalist dictators is a good one.

Pinochet, Chiang Kai Shek, Lee Kuan Yew, King Leopold II, Suharto?

 

[Frank Merton]

Freedom is embracing reciprocal maintenance.

That sounds like jargon.

 

[Frank Merton]

You don't wanna be right, nuthin' much I can say anyway.

Just think for a minute how one is supposed to respond to a situation where the other party has broken up what you say into little pieces. It becomes an incomprehensible mess, so I don't bother.

 

[Papoon]

That sounds like jargon.

It isn't. It's just succinct.

 

[Papoon]

I have just embarked on reading Capital (Karl Marx). It is a huge work. Almost nobody has actually read it. So I thought I'd give it a go.

Has anyone here read the whole three volumes ?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have just embarked on reading Capital (Karl Marx). It is a huge work. Almost nobody has actually read it. So I thought I'd give it a go.

Has anyone here read the whole three volumes ?

No, but neither do I have to have read the whole Bible in order to have enough information to make judgements about what it says.

 

[Frank Merton]

No, but neither do I have to have read the whole Bible in order to have enough information to make judgements about what it says.

Books like the Bible and Marx are obsolete. It might be worthwhile to read a couple of summaries from different viewpoints, to get a historical perspective, but otherwise you are waisting your time. When I tackle this sort of thing I look for copies that are at a minimum fully annotated, but summaries and commentaries are better.

 

[Papoon]

No, but neither do I have to have read the whole Bible in order to have enough information to make judgements about what it says.

It wasn't a challenge. I'm curious to know if anyone has actually read it.

 

[Augustus]

Books like the Bible and Marx are obsolete. It might be worthwhile to read a couple of summaries from different viewpoints, to get a historical perspective, but otherwise you are waisting your time. When I tackle this sort of thing I look for copies that are at a minimum fully annotated, but summaries and commentaries are better.

Nonsense. It might be more convenient to read summaries, but it is never 'better'.

If you ever read a summary of a source you have read the original of, what you frequently notice is that it misrepresents the original, even on very basic points. You often get summaries, based on summaries, based on summaries rather than a genuine attempt to engage with the original text. What you are reading is an interpretation, 2nd hand information (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.)

Marx is not obsolete in any way, he was a genius as much of his work genuinely stands the test of time. That Marxist communism failed does not mean aspects of his critique of capitalism also 'failed'. The 2 are separate things.

You could genuinely despise communism and still find much of value in the work of Marx.

 

[First Baseman]

A constitutional democracy with capitalism is best.
And if you want, I'll consider adding a little welfare state to the mix.

I agree.

Thanks, Obama! (just kidding!)

Actually, I like welfare states like the Scandinavian nations but the US Constitution guarantees that no law can be made to prohibit right to practice religion. Of course it could be changed in the future but right now it works for me.

 

[Papoon]

Nonsense. It might be more convenient to read summaries, but it is never 'better'.

If you ever read a summary of a source you have read the original of, what you frequently notice is that it misrepresents the original, even on very basic points. You often get summaries, based on summaries, based on summaries rather than a genuine attempt to engage with the original text. What you are reading is an interpretation, 2nd hand information (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.)

Marx is not obsolete in any way, he was a genius as much of his work genuinely stands the test of time. That Marxist communism failed does not mean aspects of his critique of capitalism also 'failed'. The 2 are separate things.

You could genuinely despise communism and still find much of value in the work of Marx.

Well said. I was going to write a similar post, but you stated it well.

I would only add that commentaries and critiques of his work probably more accurately represent the barrow being pushed by the commentator. Either a particular political slant, or even mere attention-getting from academics, whose guiding principle is 'publish or perish'.

 

[Willamena]

Power corrupts, and the greater the concentration of power in government, it will evolve into an inevitably corrupt system which is socialist by any definition.

It's been my experience, working in government for 35 years, that it is ego, rather than power, that corrupts.

 

[Papoon]

It's been my experience, working in government for 35 years, that it is ego, rather than power, that corrupts.

I think you are mostly right. However, some kinds of power may change the ego at a neurophysical level.
Dr Timothy Leary wrote an essay on this subject entitled 'The Curse of the Oval Room' in which he postulated that becoming the POTUS made a man THE alpha male, and that primate derivatives are fundamentally altered by genes turned on by this social position.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It's been my experience, working in government for 35 years, that it is ego, rather than power, that corrupts.

Pretty much the same difference. Power goes to the head and makes us think we're more important, or smarter than we are. A legal/moral double standard is the insidious source of all evil--not money, fame, sex or even power. It "justifies" the unequal protection of our human rights. I think some people have the strength of ego or character not to abuse it, but they are rare. And we can never know if we're one of them until we're actually put to the test.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It wasn't a challenge. I'm curious to know if anyone has actually read it.

Standing alone like that without giving a reason for your curiosity, and given that it isn't actually necessary to have read it to know what it says, it walks and talks a quacks like a challenge.

 

[Frank Merton]

Nonsense. It might be more convenient to read summaries, but it is never 'better'.

If you ever read a summary of a source you have read the original of, what you frequently notice is that it misrepresents the original, even on very basic points. You often get summaries, based on summaries, based on summaries rather than a genuine attempt to engage with the original text. What you are reading is an interpretation, 2nd hand information (or 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc.)

Marx is not obsolete in any way, he was a genius as much of his work genuinely stands the test of time. That Marxist communism failed does not mean aspects of his critique of capitalism also 'failed'. The 2 are separate things.

You could genuinely despise communism and still find much of value in the work of Marx.

Marx is utterly obsolete (in fact he was by Lenin's time) and that you assert otherwise tells me that you have no real knowledge about the history of Communism.