cinepro Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: False, cinepro. There have been and are now successful communist systems of socio-economic order which bring joy and opportunity to all participants. In America and Canada, for example, we have the Hutterite Brethren. In Basque Spain, we have the amazing Mondragon. In Israel, we have had the kibbutz, in which I participated for two years long ago. Cynics like yourself are certain that it can't work, even if it does. The early Essene, Christian, Ebionite, Nephite, etc., practice of "all things common" scares ideologues, but it also calls forth the best in us. Well, I've never lived in a Kibbutz, so all my information is second-hand. But it's my understanding that many Kibbutzes only survived by making concessions towards capitalism and private property. For example: Quote The celebrations are tinged with melancholy, though. The institution of the kibbutz has survived its first century, but the hope of pioneering a new and better model of human society has not. Over the past quarter-century, most of Israel’s 270 kibbutzim have abandoned the founders’ socialist credo, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” and replaced it with the new “privatized” kibbutz. Today’s kibbutz boasts differential salaries, shuttered dining halls, individual home ownership, private bank accounts and investment portfolios and, of course, richer and poorer kibbutzniks. Only about 80 kibbutzim, fewer than one-third, still preserve the old egalitarianism. http://forward.com/opinion/127122/what-actually-undermined-the-kibbutz/ These are the kinds of "adaptations" I would expect to be necessary in preserving the existence of such enterprises. The article referenced argues that other forces were at play, but I heard an NPR story years ago that described the changes as being necessary due to human nature (things like people leaving their AC on 24/7 because they weren't paying for it directly). Can't find the story though. I also admit it might work in severely isolated societies (or communities with non-voluntary participation). But once a community starts interacting with other non-communal communities and people have the choice, I don't think think their longevity is likely. Edited March 10, 2016 by cinepro
thesometimesaint Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, halconero said: That depends on whether or not the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution as binding on just the federal government, or both state and federal governments. Many held the former view, and there was no uniform consensus regarding the separation of state and religion among them. Okay...I don't get why we're talking about the Enlightenment as if its Gospel somehow. Hint: It also paved the way for the depravities of the French Revolution, the 1848 revolutions, and reactions against those. I'm not arguing that some states didn't follow the rules. Some did, some didn't. I am arguing that they ALL should have followed the rules. It says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Under the US Constitution we were no longer just a loose Confederation of states. We became the United States of America. The Enlightenment was more than just the scientific revolution. Without the freedoms of the Enlightenment there would be no Restored Gospel. The Enlightenment certainly influenced Thomas Paine. SEE Thomas Paine "Common Sense".
Meadowchik Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, volgadon said: That just sounds like someone tryng to milk the system, to which you should have responded by handing him a contract obligating him to pay the sum equivalent to rent to a homeless shelter... He was trying to milk us, too. Once we built the addition, he no longer wanted to contribute as we'd agreed. I think he cannot get past our income compared to theirs. But, that is a big element of socialism: income inequality. BTW we cannot force him to pay his part for the addition, but we also are not obligated to let them use it. Doors are locked. And we cannot kick them out, either. France essentially uses rental law as a proxy for public housing : the law highly favors renters. Anyways, I can still see this kind of thing happening with the Order, but atleast the priesthood leaders would have greater authority in such a case. This man is ill and does not work. We tried to create an alternative arrangement for them to do their part, something spread out over time, little jobs for us here and there when he feels well enough but they refused to even discuss it. I imagine it getting real ugly and divisive in the Order when people say they cannot contribute but expect support, while the supporters feel exploited. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) Here is the reality of Capitalism as practiced in the US. Lest you think it is just the US. SEE Edited March 10, 2016 by thesometimesaint
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, longview said: You don't know your scriptures. Lucifer and his hosts were evicted from Heaven and they continue to try to ensnare the remainder (those that get to have mortal bodies). The devils have an advantage: they remember their experience in the pre-existence but mortals have the "veil of forgetfulness placed on their minds. Whenever mortals sin, they fall to Satan's side. The more they sin, the more Satan gains control over them. To the point that Satan rages in the hearts of the wicked. THIS is the on going war that is happening right here on EARTH! THIS is the continuation of the same struggles that occurred in the pre-existence. The more we sin, the more we LOSE our agency to that wicked one until we become completely BOUND to that remorseless serpent. Be true to yourself and take the longview . . . It's not over till it's over.
halconero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: I'm not arguing that some states didn't follow the rules. Some did, some didn't. I am arguing that they ALL should have followed the rules. It says "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". Under the US Constitution we were no longer just a loose Confederation of states. We became the United States of America. The Enlightenment was more than just the scientific revolution. Without the freedoms of the Enlightenment there would be no Restored Gospel. The Enlightenment certainly influenced Thomas Paine. SEE Thomas Paine "Common Sense". I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. I agree with you that theocracies generally suck, but that wasn't the point of Madison's original quote, which you removed from context. I also didn't say the Enlightenment was a purely scientific revolution. Also, if you've read about Paine (yes, I have a copy of Common Sense) you'll know that he even thought the Enlightenment went too far in France. The Freedoms proposed by the Enlightenment, including putting human rationality on a pedestal and free-market ideology were extremely destructive under authoritarian Enlightenment-aligned factions from the Girondists to the San-couelotte to the Jacobins. Just because something LED to the Restoration doesn't mean that it is somehow inherently sacrosanct, virtuous, or overall good. It's a widely acknowledged belief in the Church (to the point of being in Preach My Gospel, Lesson 1) that the Reformation was an event inspired to pave the way for the Restoration. That doesn't mean that Calvinist doctrine, Lutheran teachings on the priesthood of believers, or the subsequent Wars of Religion were under the same "good" umbrella. But I'll say again...I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore. My only point was that Madison's quote wasn't about communism, theocracy, theology, or whatever. It's specifically about the necessity of government of any type, and he argues that because of human nature, government is necessary to govern and regulate injustices. He argues that were humanity to act in a divine manner after the nature of angels government wouldn't be a necessity...when we know the opposite is true from scripture. I'm not sure what's controversial about that statement or where our disagreement lies. Edited March 10, 2016 by halconero 2
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Well, I've never lived in a Kibbutz, so all my information is second-hand. But it's my understanding that many Kibbutzes only survived by making concessions towards capitalism and private property. For example: These are the kinds of "adaptations" I would expect to be necessary in preserving the existence of such enterprises. The article referenced argues that other forces were at play, but I heard an NPR story years ago that described the changes as being necessary due to human nature (things like people leaving their AC on 24/7 because they weren't paying for it directly). Can't find the story though. I also admit it might work in severely isolated societies (or communities with non-voluntary participation). But once a community starts interacting with other non-communal communities and people have the choice, I don't think think their longevity is likely. Ah, but the very article you cite tells a very different story, cinepro: Quote If you listen to the leaders and financial managers who were running the kibbutz movement during the crisis that undermined the kibbutzim during the 1980s, you get a very different story. The way they tell it, the old kibbutz dream didn’t die out. It was more like murder. A combination of malice and neglect by government officials and incompetence by planners in the central kibbutz federation in the 1980s short-circuited a social and economic system that had been working fine for decades. There are precise dates and numbers to back up the case, for anyone who takes the time to listen. But for more than 20 years nobody has bothered to listen. Consider, for example: As the usual story goes, traditional kibbutz collectivism stifles economic growth. Over the past two decades, supposedly, those kibbutzim smart enough to recognize this truth have gone private. They’ve created incentives for productivity, rewarding the best and brightest with higher salaries. The non-privatized kibbutzim, presumably, have remained mired in socialist stagnation. But the truth is just the opposite. The kibbutzim that maintained classic kibbutz socialism are the ones that thrived economically over the past generation. Their members have kept innovating regardless of kibbutz structure, developing and marketing high-tech irrigation systems, operating state-of-the-art printing, plastics manufacturing and even financial services. It turns out that when money comes in, nobody minds sharing. It’s when the kibbutz treasury runs dry and living standards are slashed that bickering erupts. That’s when members start leaving to pursue those dreams they didn’t know they had until the kibbutz cut their consumer allowance. http://forward.com/opinion/127122/what-actually-undermined-the-kibbutz/#ixzz42WsYFNbx . Indeed, if you read outside, expert opinion on the LDS United Order, you get a very positive impression that the Mormons had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!! So Kenneth Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974); cf. Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975); Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson, . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments (MIT, 1978); Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/1992); Dean May, “One Heart and Mind: Communal Life and Values Among the Mormons,” in Donald E. Pitzer, ed., America’s Communal Utopias (1997), 135-158; Mario De Pillis, “The Development of Mormon Communitarianism, 1826-1846,” doctoral dissertation (Yale Univ., 1960); Gordon E. Wagner, “Consecration and Stewardship: A Socially Efficient System of Justice,” doctoral dissertation (Cornell Univ., 1977). As the late Eugene England pointed out long ago in a book review, “the divine economic order is not democratic capitalism, but theocratic socialism,” and he observed that today’s capitalistic Mormons were in the 19th century “dangerously anticapitalistic utopians.” That is why they were targeted by the U. S. Government – a government then and now primarily under the control of big business -- whose only religion is “free market” capitalism -- with plenty of welfare for corporations, and leaving the poor to “eat cake.” See England in Sunstone Review, II/10 (Oct 1982):1,25-27; quotes on 27 & 26, respectively; cf. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 105, 154-155. 2
volgadon Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: Well, I've never lived in a Kibbutz, so all my information is second-hand. But it's my understanding that many Kibbutzes only survived by making concessions towards capitalism and private property. For example: These are the kinds of "adaptations" I would expect to be necessary in preserving the existence of such enterprises. The article referenced argues that other forces were at play, but I heard an NPR story years ago that described the changes as being necessary due to human nature (things like people leaving their AC on 24/7 because they weren't paying for it directly). Can't find the story though. I also admit it might work in severely isolated societies (or communities with non-voluntary participation). But once a community starts interacting with other non-communal communities and people have the choice, I don't think think their longevity is likely. The story is far more complicated, Cinepro. The kibbutz has always existed in close proximity to other forms of community. A financial crisis catalysed the fall of the system, but that was hardly unusual for Israel, and kibbutzim could have weathered it. If anything, they were in a better place to do so than non-communal farming villages. Among the currents responsible were a certain disillusionment in Israeli society and its past values as a whole, and rank opportunism. Many people recognised a good time to break into what could be an economic boom by using kibbutz resources and connections to do so. The gamble usually paid off. Doesn't make the kibbutz as an idea a failure. 1
cinepro Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, volgadon said: Doesn't make the kibbutz as an idea a failure. It just seems that such movements are always successful "as an idea". Certainly, I see how they can work in a situation where there is small scale, isolation and perhaps some compulsion. Back to my original point, I would never bet on the long-term viability of such socialist, communist or other type community though.
thesometimesaint Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, halconero said: I don't even know what we're arguing about anymore. I agree with you that theocracies generally suck, but that wasn't the point of Madison's original quote, which you removed from context. I also didn't say the Enlightenment was a purely scientific revolution. Also, if you've read about Paine (yes, I have a copy of Common Sense) you'll know that he even thought the Enlightenment went too far in France. The Freedoms proposed by the Enlightenment, including putting human rationality on a pedestal and free-market ideology were extremely destructive under authoritarian Enlightenment-aligned factions from the Girondists to the San-couelotte to the Jacobins. Just because something LED to the Restoration doesn't mean that it is somehow inherently sacrosanct, virtuous, or overall good. It's a widely acknowledged belief in the Church (to the point of being in Preach My Gospel, Lesson 1) that the Reformation was an event inspired to pave the way for the Restoration. That doesn't mean that Calvinist doctrine, Lutheran teachings on the priesthood of believers, or the subsequent Wars of Religion were under the same "good" umbrella. But I'll say again...I'm not even sure what we're arguing anymore. My only point was that Madison's quote wasn't about communism, theocracy, theology, or whatever. It's specifically about the necessity of government of any type, and he argues that because of human nature, government is necessary to govern and regulate injustices. He argues that were humanity to act in a divine manner after the nature of angels government wouldn't be a necessity...when we know the opposite is true from scripture. I'm not sure what's controversial about that statement or where our disagreement lies. Take the God(s)/the Devil(s) out of the equation and it makes sense when applied to men.
halconero Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 Please clarify your statement. What makes sense? The quote without the reference to angelic nature makes neuters the couplet. 1
volgadon Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 1 hour ago, cinepro said: It just seems that such movements are always successful "as an idea". Certainly, I see how they can work in a situation where there is small scale, isolation and perhaps some compulsion. Back to my original point, I would never bet on the long-term viability of such socialist, communist or other type community though. The idea, though, was fairly successful in practice. 2
janderich Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 7 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said: 1 and 2 are contradictory. You can't deed your property to the order and still own it. No 3 just reiterates the needs based allocation of resources in modern socialism. You give your property to the order and then a portion is deeded back to you. It may be more or less then you originally gave. You own this new portion. Elder J Rubben Clark said it would be a deed in fee simple transaction, yours to do with as you pleased.
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 4 hours ago, longview said: You don't know your scriptures. Lucifer and his hosts were evicted from Heaven and they continue to try to ensnare the remainder (those that get to have mortal bodies). The devils have an advantage: they remember their experience in the pre-existence but mortals have the "veil of forgetfulness placed on their minds. Whenever mortals sin, they fall to Satan's side. The more they sin, the more Satan gains control over them. To the point that Satan rages in the hearts of the wicked. THIS is the on going war that is happening right here on EARTH! THIS is the continuation of the same struggles that occurred in the pre-existence. The more we sin, the more we LOSE our agency to that wicked one until we become completely BOUND to that remorseless serpent. It is correct that sinning can cut us down and if you fall far enough (perdition) you lose the light of Christ such that there is no agency. Not because you lost your agency but because you killed the desire for good in yourself so much it is no longer there. Satan does not "control" anyone. He has willing followers. The chains are put in place by us. Agency is still inviolate. Free agents just tend to go to hell. The war is over how we use our agency and not whether we have it or not. In either case socialism or communism or capitalism or kingdoms or democracies or whatever do not by their presence either inhibit or promote agency. They do influence freedom but that is another issue. The study of government is which freedoms are worth giving up in order to promote greater freedom like agreeing to restrain myself to traffic rules to be free to not get smashed into by other cars due to the ensuing chaos.
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 2 hours ago, cinepro said: It just seems that such movements are always successful "as an idea". Certainly, I see how they can work in a situation where there is small scale, isolation and perhaps some compulsion. Back to my original point, I would never bet on the long-term viability of such socialist, communist or other type community though. There have been small scale utopian societies formed by intelligent and dedicated idealists but they usually fade away with the founder dropping out of the picture. You need a society of intelligence and dedicated idealists or a small enough society that shame and social scorn socially coerce the participants.
SmileyMcGee Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, janderich said: You give your property to the order and then a portion is deeded back to you. It may be more or less then you originally gave. You own this new portion. Elder J Rubben Clark said it would be a deed in fee simple transaction, yours to do with as you pleased. Yes, in the United Order you may have received a stewardship, but this was allocated to you by a central body based on need. In the end you have the members of the group sharing in the factors of production and profits based on a non-market, needs-based system of allocation. If you reject that system as socialist/communist/communalist then I don't know what else to tell you. 1
The Nehor Posted March 10, 2016 Posted March 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: Yes, in the United Order you may have received a stewardship, but this was allocated to you by a central body based on need. In the end you have the members of the group sharing in the factors of production and profits based on a non-market, needs-based system of allocation. If you reject that system as socialist/communist/communalist then I don't know what else to tell you. This kind of double talk to make consecration compatible with capitalism came during the Cold War from some apostles who were attempting point out that consecration was not a call to conventional communism. Their intent was good but some of their wrangling in these addresses strains credulity. Then the Cold War ended and the apostles stopped. Some people have taken their anti-communism talks and tried to turn them into discourses on Consecration and how it should operate which they were not. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 5 hours ago, cinepro said: It just seems that such movements are always successful "as an idea". Certainly, I see how they can work in a situation where there is small scale, isolation and perhaps some compulsion. Back to my original point, I would never bet on the long-term viability of such socialist, communist or other type community though. You'd lose that bet, cinepro. I lived the kibbutz life, and there was no compulsion about it. I found a very kind and tolerant people on the kibbutz. Of course they were Jews, a people with a very high ethical and moral history, and a people who had been subjected to horrific persecution. That I was not a fellow Jew did not matter to them. What mattered to them was I was a very hard-working and ethical person myself. On the morning of the first day of the Six Day War, they did me the honor of giving me a rifle, a bandolier of ammo, and a steel helmet -- and assigning me a defensive position. Teenagers laid comm-wire, as we prepared to fight. All men between 18 and 50 were elsewhere with their army units. The rest of us were prepared to die in defense of the kibbutz, which was already being shelled by the Arab Legion. Nothing succeeds like success, cinepro. The Israeli kibbutz continues to be a success, as has Mondragon, and the Hutterite Brethren. All have been at it for the long term, all without compulsory means. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) One might want to take a look at a successful communal system, such as that of Mondragon. It has been an unqualified success now for generations. Arriba y adelante. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZoI0C1mPek . When the workers at Nephi Rubber attempted to create something similar decades ago, Senator Orrin Hatch stepped in and destroyed the effort. Yet, Mondragon is an excellent example of how we could put the Law of Consecration into full effect in Utah, here and now. We could create a truly egalitatian society today, which would be the envy of the world. We could bring back Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution as more than just another department store. Edited March 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 3
janderich Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 5 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said: Yes, in the United Order you may have received a stewardship, but this was allocated to you by a central body based on need. In the end you have the members of the group sharing in the factors of production and profits based on a non-market, needs-based system of allocation. If you reject that system as socialist/communist/communalist then I don't know what else to tell you. That is not how Joseph Smith saw it. It was not allocated to you by a central body. It was discussed one on one. When he instructed Edward Partridge on dividing stewardships he said: Quote To condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families. The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop’s judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. (History of the Church 1:364-365) 2
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, The Nehor said: No, King Benjamin was the second to last king. King Mosiah reigned in righteousness and voluntarily brought about the end of the monarchy. Earthly kingships are not predestined to corruption. In fact it could be argued that monarchs are less susceptible to corruption. I would certainly argue it. If I am a House Representative likely to get voted out next term I would probably be more likely to take a bribe then would a king not bothered about wealth. Monarchies do tend to be much more autocratic but that is not corruption. And here we see idolatry in its pure undiluted state. King Noah was after Benjamin Mosiah 23:13 13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. Mosiah 29:16 16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. Edited March 11, 2016 by RevTestament
The Nehor Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Mosiah 29:16 16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. Mosiah 23:13 13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. Yes, kingships can be dangerous due to the possibility of a bad king which King Mosiah knew. King Noah was a bad king but his reign bore no relationship to that of King Benjamin or King Mosiah. He was king of a different nation. 1
halconero Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 11 hours ago, RevTestament said: King Noah was after Benjamin Mosiah 23:13 13 And now as ye have been delivered by the power of God out of these bonds; yea, even out of the hands of king Noah and his people, and also from the bonds of iniquity, even so I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. Mosiah 29:16 16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. They were entirely different Kingdoms. Zeniff preceded King Noah in the Land of Nephi after migrating there with some Nephites from the Land of Zarahemla and establishing a client kingdom within the larger Lamanite confederation of Kingdoms. Back in Zarahemla, the Mosiah-dynasty from Mosiah to Benjamin and then Mosiah Jr were highly esteemed, and may have even gotten what is possibly a family name (Mosiah) due to the original's Moses-like leadership of Nephite refugees from the Land of Nephi, due to its similarity with the Hebrew title for deliverer. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 The best type of government is a righteous King. The worst type is an unrighteous one.
RevTestament Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 15 minutes ago, halconero said: They were entirely different Kingdoms. Zeniff preceded King Noah in the Land of Nephi after migrating there with some Nephites from the Land of Zarahemla and establishing a client kingdom within the larger Lamanite confederation of Kingdoms. Back in Zarahemla, the Mosiah-dynasty from Mosiah to Benjamin and then Mosiah Jr were highly esteemed, and may have even gotten what is possibly a family name (Mosiah) due to the original's Moses-like leadership of Nephite refugees from the Land of Nephi, due to its similarity with the Hebrew title for deliverer. It's an example of why temporal monarchies are a bad idea. It is akin to the VP of the US running off with the southern states to form a new country with a new leadership under him. which is kinda what happened to Israel when it split into Judah and Israel. BTW Solomon the ever-wise king conscripted his northern subjects into basically slave labor to build the temple and his other projects, which is probably what got them mad enough to split off - not such a wise move after all. As a split kingdom they were not much of a match against their more powerful neighbors. Anyway, the debate is about the wisdom of different types of government, and monarchies are a bad idea. They are inherently unstable and seem to always degenerate into rulership by force and intimidation. If that is what the people want, God gives it to them. Socialism is perhaps even worse than a monarchy because all the means of the people to fight back are taken away and given to the oligarchial "monarchy." Monarchies normally just tax stuff, but ownership remains in the people. When you don't own anything, how can you fight injustice in the system? You are worse than a pawn - a pawn owns his space at least. Socialism leaves no room for dissenters, which is why they leave or usually die at the hands of their "wonderful" leaders. That is the type of power monarchies have which is why they aren't around too much anymore - people won't put up with them. To put all that power back in the hands of a socialist government which holds all the purse strings is an historically horrible idea. The working Joe tends to like the idea which is how it got hold in Russia and Cuba, but both of those countries had bloody and violent overthrow, and have lagged horribly behind. They are essentially led by kings in sheep chameleon skin. Cuba chased out all of their talent and are now all equally poor - except for the oligarchial rulers of course. They have the potential to be the most wealthy Carribean country. Further, socialism kills the incentive to work hard, innovate, risk all your capital, etc which is why it falls behind and why China gave up on it. China is not communist, and it is no longer socialist. It is an oligarchial hybrid. If that is what people want, I suggest they move there and see what it is like before asking for it.
Recommended Posts