Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At the end of the day, the word socialism carries a ridiculous amount of baggage.

Frazzled started this thread because its apparently so shocking that an Obama appointment might have a connection to a socialist organisation. I mean, it’s socialism! Never mind that socialism doesn’t carry the same baggage elsewhere in the world, so European and International bodies feel free to use the term to mean what it really means.

Then you’ve got focusedfire, for whom the term sparks off a long rant about decadent Europeans, a failure of individuals to manage their own lives, modern self-centred life, one world government, self reliance and not living beyond your means. None of which has anything to do with socialism, basically the concept that capitalism will lead to the concentration of wealth and power among a few owners of capital, so measures should be put in place to ensure a more egalitarian spread of power and wealth.

And that’s it. It’s something done by every single developed country, to some extent. That’s right, it isn’t just them weirdo Europeans that are socialist, the US with its progressive taxation, welfare, public education… it’s socialist too.

ShumaGorath wrote:
5. Private military companies are not inherently evil, however directionless military force is a tool of the market and the market is inherently dehumanizing. Ergo PMCs are dehumanizing by comodotizing the concept of violence.

Given the nature of the modern MIC I feel that they most certainly represent a dark side of capitalism.

Black water, Dynecorp and its ilk aren't simply mercenary companies, they are an avenue of outsourcing and unregulating modern conflict. Ideally all branches of military (including development) should be state controled and regulated, eliminating the profiteering that is particularilly prevalent in the modern US war machine. Outsourcing to PMCs removes culpability from the state both internationally and domestically (no flag draped coffins to hammer the point home that they are fighting a real war). They represent a step back from the ideals that the supposedly modern and liberal nations in the west represent.

Also Erik Prince is essentially a fundamentalist psychotic.

Yup, social democracy. Wouldn't have it any other way.

You don't strike down the wealthy, or the fortunate, or the 'decadent'... but the greedy and the selfish are a social disease. If the only people who vote are the only ones sensible enough to look out for their own interests, then your country can spiral downhill as far as it likes...
Voting is NOT something you do for yourself, it's something a society should do as a whole. I'm not saying the US is the only state with this problem, but for such a powerful world player it's awfully scared of the dark, so to speak.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Yup, social democracy. Wouldn't have it any other way.

You don't strike down the wealthy, or the fortunate, or the 'decadent'... but the greedy and the selfish are a social disease. If the only people who vote are the only ones sensible enough to look out for their own interests, then your country can spiral downhill as far as it likes...
Voting is NOT something you do for yourself, it's something a society should do as a whole. I'm not saying the US is the only state with this problem, but for such a powerful world player it's awfully scared of the dark, so to speak.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

I'm really torn on the issue.

On the one hand you expect that participation in the benefits afforded in a liberal democracy should be voluntary, considering the nature of the beast.

On the other hand Bush 2004

Most Obama appointments appear to be right wingers many from the previous administration. Add allowing that the Democrat party is usually to the left of the Republicans.

Isnt it time some left wingers (or what passes for them in the US political system) made an appearance in a Democrat president's cabinet.

Orlanth wrote:Most Obama appointments appear to be right wingers many from the previous administration. Add allowing that the Democrat party is usually to the left of the Republicans.

Isnt it time some left wingers (or what passes for them in the US political system) made an appearance in a Democrat president's cabinet.

Read about Lincoln's cabinet, there are alot of paralells.

The idea, I believe, is to create an environment of discourse rather than simple subservience.

Still, we shouldnt count of chickens, Obama has alot of hopes (lol) pinned on him but we will have to wait and see how he performs in his elected role.

Just out of curiosity, who has Obama appointed that you would consider a right winger? Off the top of my head the only Bush legacy I can think of is Gates, and he really isn't even all that right wing with respect to his area of authority.

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".


Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Just out of curiosity, who has Obama appointed that you would consider a right winger? Off the top of my head the only Bush legacy I can think of is Gates, and he really isn't even all that right wing with respect to his area of authority.

Maintaining the bush war machine was a pretty big batch. But that was more of an interim measure to allow for a maintaining of efforts on the ground so as to avoid any sort of leadership crises in the iraq conflict. Otherwise it's been a bunch of predominant left wing figures or people with previous experience and skill. Its a group that is designed to be good at its job, not espouse an ideology like we've had for the last 8 years.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

While I'm certainly not one to shy away from criticizing the public debate I also have to believe that considerations of voter eligibility are bound to end in totalitarianism, or at the very least a quasi-junta akin to Nasserist Turkey.

I think the ignorance of the larger electorate with respect to larger, contemporary issues is just one of those things that must be accepted as part of political reality in a Republic.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Maintaining the bush war machine was a pretty big batch. But that was more of an interim measure to allow for a maintaining of efforts on the ground so as to avoid any sort of leadership crises in the iraq conflict. Otherwise it's been a bunch of predominant left wing figures or people with previous experience and skill. Its a group that is designed to be good at its job, not espouse an ideology like we've had for the last 8 years.

I don't know. I think that, for the most part, Bush's military policy has been fairly sound. Certainly mistakes were made with respect to the presentation of Iraq in terms of justification, and its overall timing, but the actual decision making on the ground probably couldn't have been much better. At least not within the confines of the realities of troop levels, and recruitment expectations.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So, does the idea of compulsory voting upset anyone?

The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".


Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Excellent statement - it needs to be said more often than it is. I don't actually vote myself. I don't have any strong personal reason, nor do I have anything better to do. It is technically compulsory to vote in Australia... But I think that the manner in which I serve the community is more valuable than the time I could spend banging my head against the walls of Parliament House. You know, I would like to see Sydney spend five million dollars on public transport every year rather than spending five million on a New Year's fireworks gala, and then complaining that the trains were overcrowded when everyone left the harbour. I wish corporate taxes were higher, I frankly wish commodities were more expensive. Unfortunately, there's no one you can vote for who actually supports any of that. I hope the 'economic climate change' fixes some of this - after all, if less people are required to be employed, then social support should logically be prioritised. The problem of population vs. resources is a trickier one, but hopefully the bulk of religion is only a few generations off it's expiry date.

The ideas behind Liberalism (note the capitalistion) have always concerned me. To me it sounds more like an attitude problem than a political stance.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

I don't know. I think that, for the most part, Bush's military policy has been fairly sound. Certainly mistakes were made with respect to the presentation of Iraq in terms of justification, and its overall timing, but the actual decision making on the ground probably couldn't have been much better. At least not within the confines of the realities of troop levels, and recruitment expectations.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the actions on the ground were well planned and implemented. There's good reason for that too, as the ground actions of the last five years since major combat actions were declared over have been fraught with mismanagement unrealistic expectations and a general lack of clear leadership and an understanding of mission.

For an administration to fire senior military officials for little more than voicing a dissenting opinion outside of party line (when the military is supposed to be non political) smacks of incredible mismanagement and disrespect for the office of the president and the role of the military. People knew how hard Iraq was going to be once Sadaam fell, and those people were silenced so that the public could feel that our troops would be greeted with flowers (which they were until it was revealed that they had no idea what to do once the easy part of governmental disassembly was finished). The first few years of bush military doctrine failed completely in understanding how nation building is done.

he ideas behind Liberalism (note the capitalistion) have always concerned me. To me it sounds more like an attitude problem than a political stance.

What definition of liberalism?

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Then you limit voting rights by economic and religious standing. Not all universities will be accredited due to religious teachings, and not all families can afford college.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then you limit voting rights by economic and religious standing. Not all universities will be accredited due to religious teachings, and not all families can afford college.

they can in Australia

As for religion, a state should be secular.

A states government or its citizenry?

Taco_bat wrote:A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

Ahtman wrote:
Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

what are you basing this arguement on beyond personal opinion?

ShumaGorath wrote:A states government or its citizenry?

The state, therefore its educational facilities should be removed from religious affiliation beyond an analytical nature.

The state, therefore its educational facilities should be removed from religious affiliation beyond an analytical nature.

Thats not the point of representative governance. Religion should be sidelined perhaps, and of secondary importance to logical and considered policy making, but if you remove peoples beliefs from a republic then you no longer have one.

First read the definitions for both socialism and decadent:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decadent


Decadent ain't lazy, more like comfortably spoiled. When raised in a decadent society it is increasingly difficult to sacrifice the comforts to which we've become. This is a valuable tool for governments who might wish to continuously pacify the masses. This isn't paranoia, its what Marx was alluding to. At least according to the classes from when I was in the military.

Socialism, is about as anti-self reliant as you can get. It is Collectivism. In such a system the individual truly owns nothing therefore has no responsibility to anything other than the state. Hence my remarks about responsible and self-reliant.


My first post merely commented on the difference in mindsets and when asked I replied that yes europeans are decadent. My first remark was aimed at more at my countrymen as we are the definition of decadent. As an American raised in the most decadent country in the world, I could tell you how difficult it is to shed those luxuries and comforts. I made a concious choice to become a self-reliant responsible individual who is an independant, debt-free, business person. If one is living beyond his means to where he is perpetually in debt, that is not self-reliant. That is participating in the collective. Restricting your lifestyle voluntarily to where you are no longer dependent upon the collective for anything other than the bare minimum is no mean trick.

As for spread the wealth. I do not believe that there has ever been a truly altruistic government. I believe in Machiavellian ones. Wealth spreading is just another means of governmental control and stealing money to line pockets.


Yes, I feel and think differently than the most of you so I obviously am ranting(Implying that there is no logical thought behind my stance). The point I started out with was that we Americans are somewhat socialist(I may have mistated in the first post on this). Take Mrs. Clintons HMO disaster(socialism), Bush's no child left behind fiasco(socialism). There is a string of other socialized failures that has left me completely unimpressed with the concept as a whole. Are we completely there yet? I don't think so. Will it get to complete governmental control in my life? I certainly hope not. As An independent businessman who controls his means of production, an overly intrusive government is my worst nightmare.

I stated my point logically in the beginning and invited others to do the same. I meant no insult and the definitions show that there was none. I stated my perceptions on the matter. If you disagree then take them as the words of an out of touch old man. I just invite you to study the tools that are used to rule over us as opposed to working for us.

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
Pass that law and watch how fast the requirements/cost for college admission go up, making the number of graduates even smaller.

what are you basing this arguement on beyond personal opinion?

History, Human Nature. As far as personal opinion, no more than you do.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Thats not the point of representative governance. Religion should be sidelined perhaps, and of secondary importance to logical and considered policy making, but if you remove peoples beliefs from a republic and you no longer have one.

I said remove religious overtones from institutions that should inherently be state run, I have made no statement as the the abolishment of one's ability to pursue their own creed through personal study.

You can't seriously compare somone who has spent their life studying religious texts that dissuade critical thinking to somone with a degree in physics.

History, Human Nature. As far as personal opinion, no more than you do.

I am merely putting forward an idea, it is on you, the dissenter to produce evidence to the otherwise :eng101:

Bush's no child left behind fiasco

NCLB has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with idiotic mismanagement. Finland is a socialist country and essentially has the best education system in the world with extremely logical systems in place to help parents get back to work asap and be productive members to society.

Spreading the wealth takes the form of universal healthcare, state sponsored positions in universities, etc.

You also do realise that the majority of businesses in Europe are privately run? Socialism doesn't equate to Maoism or Stalinism.

This decadence you keep alluding to has nothing to do with political systems and everything to do with underlying social makeup in a country, it is an affliction of the modern world and can be seen everywhere in every nation, not just Socialist/capitalist ones.

I would suggest reading the works of Andrew Bacevich for more of an insite into what you are talking about, hes an ex Army officer who has some pretty interesting insights into the modern American psyche.

My first remark was aimed at more at my countrymen as we are the definition of decadent.

Considering americans don't have the highest per capita income I don't think we're the most decadent. Even moreso when you consider work hours to capita income disparities worldwide.

The point I started out with was that we Americans are somewhat socialist(I may have mistated in the first post on this). Take Mrs. Clintons HMO disaster(socialism), Bush's no child left behind fiasco(socialism).

Compared to the FDA (socialism), the new deal (socialism), and the national insurance structure (capitalism) I think there are some legs to consider all sides of the issue. A poor plan is going to fail no matter the ideology behind it, and something like universal healthcare and national public education should never be half assed (as with both clinton and bushes plans).

As for spread the wealth. I do not believe that there has ever been a truly altruistic government. I believe in Machiavellian ones. Wealth spreading is just another means of governmental control and stealing money to line pockets.

Cynicism. A Machiavellian government is no more likely to truly exist than an altruistic one. Governments are made of many, many people, and many, many viewpoints. Absolutes don't exist in good intelligent governance.

Shuma, I respect your wisdom but the last line comes across to me like an oxymoron. Not trying to be a jerk. Just the thought of applying that label to what we've had in this country as of late. I end up giggling

focusedfire wrote:Shuma, I respect your wisdom but the last line comes across to me like an oxymoron. Not trying to be a jerk. Just the thought of applying that label to what we've had in this country as of late. I end up giggling

I'm not sure I understand what it is you're getting at.

Edit: Never mind. I'm just being really irritable today for some reason and overly snarky.

Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

focusedfire wrote:Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

Yep.

edit: removed cause Ahtman removed his and I dont wanna be a dick about it

If anything, at least in Australia, requirements for admittance to university have become increasingly relaxed.

This is not a good thing.

In the US from the late 80's to the late 90's the U.S. government ran a guaranteed student loan system. In the following decade while attendance increased by only 10% the cost of Tuition went up by 100%.

what does that have to do with increased social responsibilities?

ShumaGorath wrote:

This is not a good thing.

Where did I say it was?

Thats a completely different can of worms.