How would YOU get people to give up the excess of what they produce, and fight their natural drive to dominate others?

Even if we pretend socialism is inherently authoritarian (which you would know is antithetical to the truth if you studied the true ideological roots of it)

I actually have studied the roots of socialism: Marx, etc.. It really does seem workable when supported by unfounded, idealistic assumptions about people.

I have also paid attention to people, particularly people who work, and have done so all their lives, unlike Marx, who sponged off of his parents and friends for almost all of his life.

What Marx, and his followers fail to account for is that EVERYBODY wants to keep what they already have, what they are in the process of getting, and what they plan to get. We all have different abilities and failings that affect how much we get for the same effort, and how much of that we are able to keep or grow. Even when all other things are equal, some of us end up with less for our effort, and some end up with more. When we have more, we want to keep it for ourselves and our families.

On top of that, the tendency toward creating and climbing dominance hierarchies is natural to vertebrates.

The combination of these realities means that, in order to "keep everything equal", an extraordinarily large amount of external social control must be applied, which is why Communism and Socialism necessarily have become hyper-authoritarian in the past.

So, pony up.

Propose a plan to institute and enforce communism that does not include secret police, gulags, or people magically becoming different than we really are.

Please shut your ignorant mouth

Are you aware of how writing works?

the only difference between the far left and the far right is to be found in what they want for society.

I agree with this. The ONLY difference between far left and far right is what they WANT for society. What they do to society to get it is the same. The situation after they have done these things is the same.

In every developed country where guns have strict limitations or outright bans, the levels of oppression via police are all significantly lower than in the US,

Are you sure about that?

EVERY country?

Venezuela?

China?

.

The difference is that the far right wants an authoritarian hierarchy with a supreme leader and the far left wants the complete opposite. The only thing they really share in practice is that they are ideological religions, and as such those fully indoctrinated into them will sacrifice the well-being of others and/or themselves in order to move closer toward them.

What they want is irrelevant.

My point remains that the "overall effect in practice" is the same: a rigid society run by a very small group of rich and privileged elite who oppress and impoverish the masses, and imprison, torture, and kill any who dissent.

Stalin only sounds different than Ivan the Terrible if you use the words Communist, Monarchist, left, and right. If you merely describe how they actually treated the Russian people, and the effects of their behavior on the people, the differences melt away. The Soviet Union was just another empire.

if you studied the true ideological roots of it

Read my answer. I was only discussing what actually happens IN PRACTICE. Theories are all very nice, and so are intentions, but they often ignore how people actually behave in the real world.

The USSR valued rationality over religion or mysticism, did not care about race or enforcing gender roles, were not as kind to the beorgiosie, and had the goal of eventually dissolving the state and setting up a moneyless and stateless society.

Despite the values and goals (which you recounted accurately) of the USSR, the actual result was a highly stratified society with party leaders living lavishly at the top, and everybody else either suffering under crushing poverty, or in a gulag. In practice, the Soviet government was every bit as elitist, authoritarian, and grasping as the Nazi government or the Tsars.

Great, so you think the status quo is perfect and that no society will ever progress beyond the irrational monkey stage where they rely on social constructs and authority to guide them rather than reason and democracy as us radical leftists propose.

Not exactly, but you got a couple things correct.

1 - True, I don't think people will get past the irrationality.

Too many folks follow their emotions and ideal around philosophical corners (turning both right AND left), without accounting for basic realities about our species before announcing their grand plans.

2 - Of course people will continue to need to rely on social constructs. Without such constructs, it is unlikely that hordes of people can live peacefully together with all our differing and often competing beliefs, values, and desires. Democracy is one such social construct, as are a constitution & other laws, a republic, commerce, etc..

The reason I think a democratic republic is in the ideal zone is that it simultaneously accounts for the natural human drive toward hierarchies, and people's competing desires for security and liberty. It institutionalizes compromise in a manageable system.

you are actually for a bigger government than I am

I am not arguing in favor of what I want, but rather in favor of what I think it is actually possible to get. History demonstrates pretty consistently that realities trump ideals.

I recognize that others live in this society, as well. That means that we must all compromise. The only other option is that a few get exactly what they want to the detriment of the vast majority.

History also demonstrates pretty consistently that ideologues with good intentions are harmless until they are in charge.

Once in charge, their good intentions blind them to the horrors and oppression they inflict on the masses they seek to save. This sad reality is what binds together the Inquisition, the Umayyad conquests, the Crusades, the Conquista, the Cultural Revolution, the USSR, Nazi Germany, and the Italian Fascisti. They were all driven by people seeking to make the world better by saving the masses in spite of themselves.

it depends who they/you are.

No, it does not. Read the previous paragraph again if you need an explanation.

I only ask Jesus for guidance when I need directions to a bakery (for bread), a liquor store (for wine), or a hardware store (for nails).

Question 1

Are we talking right vs. left on the full political spectrum, or right vs. left on the modern American political spectrum (where conservative Republicans are barely left of center on the full political spectrum)?

To clarify, my assumptions/observations are the following:

In terms of the full political spectrum (not theoretical, but as it has manifested historically in the real world), it seems to me that the difference between far right (totalitarian theocrats, monarchists, etc.) and far left (communists, etc.) are merely a matter of vocabulary, not overall effect in practice.

The far right tends to promise physical or moral safety, and the far left tends to promise personal or economic equality, but these never actually manifest in such societies. Both ends produce highly stratified, outrageously brutal, and incredibly oppressive realities.

The main premise of those on the ends (far left and far right) is that people are not able to run our own lives, solve our own problems, and find ways to get along with our own neighbors, but (counterintuitively) that government is able to do these things for us (despite the fact that the people in government are in no way discernable from the rest of the populace.)

Personally I think the sweet spot is in the center region of democratic republics (whether parliamentary or not) with minimally regulated market economies where governmental control is balanced against personal freedom such that security and liberty are also relatively balanced.

So, as a leftist, (in whichever sense)

Question 2

Do you think some guy or gal in government knows how to run my life and spend my money better than I do?

Question 3

Do you think some guy or gal in government is more likely to be moral/ethical and more interested in fairness than I am?

Nation's oppressive narcissists undecided on whether they will follow US Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment.

Any red shirt with a slogan on it should be banned as people from hundreds of yards away might see them and then causing the viewer to fall on the ground and convulse and then maybe even die.

Don't be silly. We should ENCOURAGE red hats and red shirts with slogans precisely BECAUSE they can cause the extremely intolerant to die.

How else can we select out for people with senses of perspective and humor, and eliminate humorless scolds with a victim complex?

Forget about the heroin overdoses. It is the e-cigarette that poses the greatest threat to all people.

Yep. E-cigs and plastic straws are ushering in Armageddon as I type this.

Hi, Al.

Most soldiers are our brothers, friends, neighbors, sisters, aunts, uncles ….. etc.! Maybe YOURS are "evil cunts" or "poor saps that don't know any better", but MINE aren't! I don't even KNOW a lot of "those kinds of people.

Thanks for saying it.

Don't leave out important statistics. Having a Gay son leads to a much greater chance of having a son die from Aids or suicide.

So let's include important statistics.

In the West, having a son of any kind (rather than a daughter) (regardless of sexual orientation) leads to a much greater chance of having a child die from suicide (78%) or homicide (78%) or work related accident (97%).

Do you understand that we don't get to pick which kind of kid we get? We do not (and I believe should not) choose either the sex or sexual orientation of our offspring.

We get the kids we get, and we protect them and prepare them for the dangers of life as well as we can. That reality is inextricably tied up with the love that is the basis of why the grief of losing a child is what it is.

It was not until the industrial revolution was well underway and germ theory was widely adopted that people did not lose over 43% of their children before they were 5 years old, and 50-60�fore the age of 10 years.

It is arguable that most of the worldwide advances in technology, productivity, nutrition, medicine, and overall wealth have been the result of the drive to keep our children alive...regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

It was substantiating theories, not having faith, that made these changes happen.

Hi, BS.

Only a fool could possibly believe other people have either the time or the inclination to search through 10,000 words for the possibility of finding a "point".

If you do not have the time to read, what are you doing on this site?

Feel free to stop reading whenever you reach the limits of your attention span.

10,000? Really? Apparently counting is not your strong suit.

I know you were exaggerating for effect, but these are not long pieces. If you think anything I write is a long piece, maybe this is the wrong format for you. Have you thought about going to Twitter?

Capiche?

The word is capisce.

Hi, Boots.

I think you completely missed my point.

Then let's toss in the fact that you're a moron who thinks gun deaths are part of a national news conspiracy and should therefore be permitted to continue for that reason.

I said nothing about whether anything should continue. I was merely answering the question, and explaining a main reason the problem is unlikely to be solved in the real world (Because people do not actually care about strangers dying.)

I doubt here is any news conspiracy, national or otherwise.

The point is merely that how many people are actually affected by a problem is not relevant to whether people express outrage/concern, etc.. What matters is whether problem is sensationalized. This is how we know that people are only pretending to care about the strangers who die in mass shootings, and that the outrage is disingenuous.

Well, let's start with the fact that most gun deaths are realistically preventable, whereas most traffic deaths are not.

There is no reason to believe that carelessness is any harder or easier to control than cruelty, anger, and mental illness. Most large American businesses have safety programs, and in general, they are very effective.

Certainly it would be no more difficult to control cars than firearms.

Traffic deaths are realistically preventable/reducible by EXACTLY the same methods as are suggested for preventing/reducing gun deaths. Restrict access to cars or guns to people who:

- are well trained

- are law abiding

- are conscientious enough to stay focused on safe operation

- are mentally healthy and have no desire to harm themselves or others

- use/maintain the safety features (trigger locks / breaks & tires)

- prevent kids or other unqualified people from accessing them

- and can pass a background check that demonstrates that they have had no lapses in any of these.

Limit where they can go.

Certainly price makes it easier to control car purchases than gun purchases.

It would be easier to identify who had bought a secondhand car because you cannot hide a car in your backpack or waistband.

It would also be easier to ensure automatic safety features are in cars than in guns.

Hi, Mint.

So when are you going to be concerned for the children and adult children who are murdered by a psycho wielding an automatic or semi-automatic? I'm just curious so I can pencil that in my calendar. Unless of course you are only concerned with those in the womb and don't give a damn about those out of it.

I honestly doubt that most people actually care about whether strangers (born or unborn) are killed.

It seems that people have been convinced that FEELING concern is virtuous, and they do not go further to actually DO anything beyond talking or writing.

If the gun control advocates actually cared about how many people die, they would be much more concerned about traffic deaths, medical errors, and suicide than about "mass" shootings.

If the anti-abortion folks actually cared about the babies, they would camp outside the clinics and offer to pay the pregnant women carry the babies to full term, and then would adopt the kids when they were born.

In reality, folks care more about looking like they care than about making anybody's life longer or better.

Thousands.

Think about why mass shootings rate a news story or debate topic, but traffic deaths don't.

Even if we do not limit the topic to mass shootings, but include all gun homicides in the US, the number of victims is still fewer than a third of those killed by auto accidents. That means that the word mass in mass shootings is irrelevant. If how many people die was the important part, we would be MUCH more concerned about access to cars than to guns.

When I look at the evidence, it seems to me that most of us care very little about other people dying, and we do not seem to care at all about complete strangers dying. It does not matter if they are shot by a gun or launched through a windshield; if we do not know them, we are mostly unbothered.

Sure, a lot of people have been convinced they are more virtuous if they care that somebody died, so they pretend that mass shootings matter to them, but if the deaths were really a problem for them, they would be just as vocal about more common causes of death.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson made a cogent point: "Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data." (Twitter, August 4, 2019 )

Even if we actually cared, nobody has actually come forward with a viable plan for preventing murder. The best they can ever do is propose methods to change how people kill each other.

Never mind that murder is already illegal, the important think is how people do it.

I already talk to dogs in English. The DOG would be the one speaking back.

So, yes, I would continue the conversation.

Hi, Redeemed,

How do figure he is preventing the working poor from having health care?

The best way to ensure people have better and cheaper access to any product or service, health care included, is to remove artificial constraints from the free market.

Health insurance (NOT the same as health care) for the working poor is being taken care of by the booming Trump economy, particularly by the increase in demand for labor. This is forcing employers to compete for workers by paying more and offering better benefits packages.

The worst way to get high quality/affordable services to people is to put the government in charge of it. NOTHING is more expensive than a government program to provide "free" anything to people.

Near as I can tell, Trump loves the working poor. Moreover, he believes in the capability of the American people, poor included, to both create and take advantage of opportunities to improve our own lives.

I do not see any evidence that atheism is intrinsically based in anger and hate, nor that agnosticism is intrinsically based on logic. People are a mixed bag.

Atheism

Some atheist are angry and hateful, but some are not. Similarly, religions have histories replete with hatred and anger (the Inquisition, crusades, and American conquest; sectarian violence in India, Muslim history, etc., ad naseum) but they also include instances of compassion, tolerance, and affirmation of beauty and life.

Sure, being emotion-oriented is often at the root of believing unproven propositions, but not always. Sometimes, given lack of evidence, people simply choose to believe an option for reasons other than emotions or reasonableness of a proposition. Often, in order to fit in, people just go along with whatever their families or friends believe. Sometimes for the sake of standing out, people choose to believe something counter to beliefs of others in their social group.

Agnosticism

By the same token, while agnosticism can be a logical acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for the existence or non-existence of god, it can also be a default in lieu of actual thought. Often when answering a question about anything they do not want to spend effort to consider, people simply say, "I don't know," not because it is a logical answer, but because they are lazy or indifferent.

Hello, Excon.

Cause we've told you countless times why voter ID is racist

The problem is that the Democrat premise regarding voter ID is what is racist. The whole argument comes down to Democrats saying that blacks are less capable than whites, even to the degree that blacks are less able to get their lives together well enough to get and maintain valid ID.

There is nothing racist in Republicans (and the non-racist Democrats) saying EVERYBODY, REGARDLESSS OF RACE, needs to follow the same rules and meet the same basic standard in order to vote, and in order to protect the integrity of the election.

Dude, why would you align yourself with the Democrat party, whose main platforms depend on categorizing people by race; ascribing characteristics by race; and allotting benefits, privileges, protections by race?

Trump is a centrist. In fact, with the exception of being against abortion, his policies are indistinguishable from Pre-Obama era Democrats.

Not this ridiculously stupid idiocy again, please. Antifa literally stands for "anti-fascism". The "expression of ideas with which they agree" is your doublespeak for FASCISM.

Suffixes matter, in this case, the suffix, -ic, which means "relating to" or, as I applied it, "having the form or character of". For example, if I say my daughter is angelic, I am in no way saying she is an actual angel, but rather that in some way she has the form or some characteristic of an angel (beauty, purity, or some other trait attributed to angels.)

Likewise, when I write that ANTIFA is fascistic, I am saying they exhibit characteristics fascists were known for. Face it, we don't hate and fear fascism because we don't want a command economy. We have a serious problem with Fascism (and fascism) because of how the Fascists treated people who disagreed with them. The Fascists shouted down dissenting voices, then excluded independent thinkers from universities and employment, then used violence and fear tactics to silence those who continued to openly display affinity to ideas with which the Fascists disagreed.

When a bunch of people in ANTIFA smash windows and start fires in order to prevent a conservative speaking engagement, they are exhibiting characteristics of the Fascists in 1930s & 1940s Italy and Germany.

When some ANTIFA jerk punches a guy for nothing more than wearing a MAGA hat, that is right in line with how the Fascists treated people.

Furthermore, you are inaccurately describing the fascist regimes in the first place, which were actually so successful because of the MASSIVE WAVE OF SPIN AND PROPAGANDA which accompanied everything they ever said and/or did.

You are absolutely right. These are marked characteristics of Fascism. Two perfect examples of non-Fascists using spin and propaganda blitzes in a fascistic way to disguise their trampling individuals rights to freely and safely disagree are the Soviet use of propaganda to justify the police state and gulags, and ANTIFA calling themselves "Antifascist" when they are no more in favor of freedom of thought and expression than were the Fascisti and the Nazis.