Socialism And Secularism Suck

[edededed]

Arrrgh... my WHOLE family (including cousins and further) is fundamentalist and highly religious - my parents and sisters keep sending me books/CDs/videos to try and convert me (re-convert me, specifically). Actually, I was like that, too, except that I actually kept my eyes open and did not just "go with the crowd" - I find that the few others who went to church with me and like me did not cry when it was time to cry, etc., also ultimately left. But anyway, I can understand both sides, since I was there, but am sort of sitting in the middle for now - how can we be so sure that something is right, or that something is bad, or that we really know what's going on?

People like to agree with each other, and so they write stuff of a certain opinion to a crowd with that same opinion - and it goes on and on. But anyway, it's bad when people start to recoil when they hear one of the big key words like "communism" or "liberalism" or whatever.

It is stupid to debate about conservatism/religiousness vs. liberalism/secularism because I have never once seen anyone "converted" from one side to the other. It rarely happens, and when it does it is because of self-discovery, not because of someone's skill at debate (and Googling).

That said, religion has given us some nice developments, like tofu, boy choirs, pretty cathedrals, and Shaolinquan. It does tend to lead to intolerance, rigid thinking, and war, though.

[klonk]

[...]
Do you have other articles that explain in more details what Prager is expressing, because as I said I think he makes valid points about religion, and perhaps even about the pitfalls of the welfare state, but those points by themselves don't lead to Prager's conclusion.

Not Prager's perspective per se, but another fellow's piece, longer and more general, reflecting on the anomie gripping Western civilizations right now:

PDF:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userIma ... pril09.pdf

Or, if you prefer, HTML:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/ ... 9&month=04

The tone of this piece is informal, it's 'in my experience' type writing, but it covers some of the same questions. It will please some here by mostly leaving the religion question alone.

By the way, klonk, I know you've had to fend off a lot of attacks today, but this isn't one. I would really like to understand your point of view, or Prager's point of view, but I can't do that based only on this article because it makes little sense as a standalone article. I hope we can have a good discussion about this.

Much appreciated! This discussion was starting to remind me of my old karate school's multi-man kumite day.

I'll see if more views and perspectives show up on my desk. My own perspective is that Western Europe, with America trailing not far behind, is engaged in making a terrible mistake. I think so having seen firsthand some results of the old commie thing. Today the progressive set is sure they can avoid the same mistakes, but I am not as optimistic as they are, about their wisdom and judgment. It seems to me that certain problems are inherent and systemic in any collective or communitarian approach, and cannot be weeded out by any amount of good intentions.

[Frank Bellemare]

Thanks klonk, I read Mark Steyn's talk transcript and found it very interesting, even though I don't agree with him entirely. Apparently, Steyn is against what he calls big government and the multiple taxes that accompany big government. He is of the idea that having the government take care of services such as health care and education is wrong because it is a limitation of freedom and necessitates taxes which are also a limitation of freedom. Laws are also a limitation of freedom, he mentions the mandatory motorcycle helmets as an example.

Now that's all true, and freedom is the spark that lights creativity and it is like fresh air for the spirit, but how would society work with a minimum of laws and a minimum of people to enforce those laws? And say we were to progressively go towards fewer and fewer regulation, a move which would hopefully be matched with increasing civil consciousness and responsibility, how do we decide what's necessary and what isn't? And if we choose to let the government withdraw from health care, education, environmental protection, driving regulations... then who do we replace the government with? Private companies? Maybe in some instances that would work. In the case of environmental protection, I doubt there's much money to be made there. And I don't know if I want there to be no law at all regulating driving, that doesn't seem right either. So we do need a bit of government. How much government we need is the real question.

European countries' and Canada's approach is that people have a basic right to a roof, an education and health care, and we as a country (I'm speaking as a Canadian here) have the responsibility to make sure that our fellow citizens do have access to these things. Sure, it sucks to pay high taxes and to know that some people are lazy and feed off the system, but to most of us it is an acceptable surrender of our freedom, because those basic human rights are worth fighting for. Does it mean that some people are less creative and dynamic? Undoubtedly. Here in China you see people sell all kinds of crap everywhere, trying to make a living, because the government is not there to care for them. I don't think that would happen in Canada, at least not on such a scale. It comes down to a question of values: is the freedom to choose how you use your money more important than basic human rights? And if the government doesn't ensure that every one of its citizens has access to education, health care and lodging, is anyone else ready to step up to the plate? Those are pretty tough questions, they go beyond "socialist" and "conservative" labels and I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer that would work for every country.

Interesting discussion, anyway. So what steps do you think the U.S. should take to become more "free" and less dependent on big government, klonk?

[klonk]

I want to be left alone. I am not hurting anyone. That is freedom as I understand it.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

pfft. He's comparing apples to apples and bleating about how different one apple is from the other.

obviously, the guy doesn't travel enough or he wouldn't make so many inane comments.

[Frank Bellemare]

I want to be left alone. I am not hurting anyone. That is freedom as I understand it.

That makes a lot of sense. How would you translate that into community and political organization? I guess for one the U.S. would stop operating military bases all over the world, right? Sort of a going back to the times where the U.S. did its own Monroe-doctrine-inspired thing and left the rest of the world alone. That would be a very interesting start, and it would probably do wonders for the country's finances too.

Politically, would you rather have the country organized as a sort of federation of city-states, Ancient Greece-style, which would allow for more freedom and democracy, or would you rather keep the current States government+National government scheme, which while being less democratic and dwarfing the individual citizen, allows for more stability and equality among the various regions of the U.S.?

Personally, my ideal is the city-state model, but I don't think it's applicable in the times we live in, because private corporate entities are too powerful and their capital is too mobile, as such they could easily play with smaller city-states and use the weaknesses in their individual legislation against them. What do you think?

[Steve James]

Personally, my ideal is the city-state model

Have there been any city-states, particularly, in the last 15 hundred years that have not depended on colonial expansion, enslavement or enserfment of a domestic majority by a minority, or the exploitation of another city-state?

I realize that it seems like a loaded, complex, question. But, I think it'd be necessary to propose a model based on an example in order to analyze the effect on the individual. I'm not sure we want a society/gov't that is exploitative, let alone depends on exploitation, even if it insures the rights of some individuals within that society.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

I think that those of us who live in the G20 world have a really blunted and stunted view of what happens to the other 5 billion people on the planet on a daily basis.
We are very comfortable and aren't faced with day to day harsh realities in virtually every way.

I am no longer heartbroken by it, but more perplexed about it.

[klonk]

To sketch quickly in big strokes: The U.S. had a pretty good system up until 1913 and the passage of the 16th amendment, which removed the designed constitutional protection against excessive taxation. Follow the money. Before this the central government was small and now it is very big. Too damned big. The framers of the constitution would be astonished to see government involved in all the areas it is into today.

Note that I say the system was good, and do not say that everything government did back then was good. Two different things! Government big or small can make big mistakes. But a small government, confined to only a short list of enumerated and necessary powers, cannot make as many mistakes as a big omnipresent government that has its fingers in every pie.

But all this is leading us away from our muttons. Is the present trend in government destructive to the human spirit? Does it lead to a stagnation of creativity and a decline in individual achievement? If so, what are the effects on society as a whole?

[Steve James]

Is the present trend in government destructive to the human spirit? Does it lead to a stagnation of creativity and a decline in individual achievement? If so, what are the effects on society as a whole?

How does one determine the answer to your first question?
Are you arguing that there have been fewer creative developments since 1913 because of the economy or the government? Would technological developments be included in creative achievements?

[Walter Joyce]

So if secularism and socialism both suck, I'd like to know if you think capitalism or socialism is more consistent with your Christian values.

[klonk]

As I see the matter, some time during the LBJ administration we decided we would rather have a big welfare system than a big space program. Nobody said so, in so many words, but if you plot graph over graph, you see space exploration got back burnered at about the same time government became responsible for a long list of entitlements.

Of course the matter of big government was an incremental encroachment, with big spikes upward during the regimes of FDR, LBJ and BHO. Originally the income tax was very small, but kept getting bigger and bigger and... so did the programs and bureaucracies and the list of laws. What I now fear, a USSA, follows upon many years of government expansion, until now it has expanded into nearly all areas of life, and is still growing. I keep hoping that people will see this as a problem and start working to roll back nearly a century of government expansion, but so far, a lot of my fellow citizens see government as the answer to any problem. It is not, but perhaps we will have to learn that the hard way.

To return to the topic, I would say the fatal dynamic of socialism is its incongruity with human nature. If the pay is the same whatever you do, few people will have the drive to excel. Secularism denies the existence of moral absolutes, substituting feelings for principles, and dissolves the societal glue of shared assumptions about right and wrong.

I have to keep reminding myself that some people don't see any problem here, and even wish we were moving faster than we are toward a socialist nirvana.

[Steve James]

I would say the fatal dynamic of socialism is its incongruity with human nature. If the pay is the same whatever you do, few people will have the drive to excel.

To which socialist countries are you referring? In the former USSR, did "everyone" make the same thing? Otoh, the Soviets were far ahead of us in terms of certain forms of technology, for many years. Personally, I think that imposing particular jobs and occupations on citizens is more destructive to the human spirit. Next to that would be the perception that citizens (or comrades) are expendable commodities to the State.

Secularism denies the existence of moral absolutes, substituting feelings for principles, and dissolves the societal glue of shared assumptions about right and wrong.

Here's how secularism is defined in the wiki --or in most poli-sci courses:

Secularism is the assertion that governmental practices or institutions should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.) In its most prominent form, secularism is critical of religious orthodoxy and asserts that religion impedes human progress because of its focus on superstition and dogma versus reason and scientific method. Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius and Epicurus, Enlightenment thinkers like Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, and modern freethinkers, agnostics and atheists such as Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Albert Einstein, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins.

[klonk]

"Whatever I do, the pay is the same" is a Dilbertism, and apparently more obscure than I thought. Perhaps not everyone is a Dilbert reader, but I used to live in Dilbert's world.

Anyhow, the expression refers to situations where innovation is not rewarded. Let us take--oh, nearly any Eurosocialist country will do. Certain benefits are assured whether you really earn them or not, so some people will take the easy way out and do the minimum to get by. Success is rewarded by being forced to hand over a big chunk of what you earned, to the point that the incentives for ass busting and creative thinking are much reduced. We see this latter effect to some extent in the U.S. For example, some business plans must be scrapped (and some businesses fail) because the price that can be charged is not big enough to cover the tax rate and also the costs of doing business.

What's in it for me, if I work hard? This is a very human question. It has different answers depending on the political system you live under.

[BillyK]

I'm sure Galileo would disagree.

why would he? in contrast to popular opinion, galileo never had really big problems with the church. the worst thing that happened to him was a slap on the wrist for saying, in a typical arrogant nerd manner "i am correct and y'all are fucking stupid lol. i have the ultimate truth."
which was bad form, since, at that time, the ultimate truth was something for the pope. and he was wrong, anyways, which we know since einstein.

the problems he had were with scientific colleagues, who basically said "even if you have evidence, you are wrong, ptolemaic cosmology > all. what cannot be, must not be.", kinda like the oh so enlightened internet armchair "scientists" of today. the church was, ironically, not as dogmatic as the scientists: the monks looked through galileo's teliscope and were like "hey, looky! you right and ptolemaios was wrong!"

EDIT:
also, show me 3 wars that were waged SOLELY because of religion. you cannot, because there weren't many, if any (not even the crusades), and there sure as hell weren't any from the 20th century onwards.

i'm not a christian, but let's stay with the facts, ok?