About socialists
I want to prove that socialism is not a philosophical idea. Philosophies are based on "values", axiomatic ideas that are accepted as "good", but themselves are unmeasurable and unprovable. For example liberals stand on the idea "personal freedom is good" (oversimplification). There is no logical way to choose between such philosophies, the decision is made on the basis of the results the system provides. The peaceful way of the selection is personal choices: "I'm satisfied by the fruits of this philosophy, I support it", the nasty way is ideological war: "this system could build stronger army, so it's better".
From the axiomatic values set of rules can be deduced logically. They manage the everyday life.
Socialists do cite values like solidarity, altruism, equality. From these values a system of sharing is logically derived. If I have more, than I should help the one with less to make us more equal, and also I shouldn't blame him for having less. The technical system for it is tax-welfare: take from the rich and give to the poor. So far so good.
However add aliens to the system: foreigners, immigrants, illegal immigrants. The above values do not differentiate between them and insider people. So if we follow logic, we must distribute the taxed money according to the depth of need the people in. Obviously the disaster victims and the starving Africans would win. However in reality the social-democratic systems distribute the taxed money to citizens who have much-much more than the mentioned ones. Also, immigrants are not equal recipients of the welfare despite they live in the country. On the top of that taxation affects citizens only and social democrats don't even try to tax people living abroad.
If we follow the logic properly we must either include everyone to the re-distribution or add another axioms to explain why we differentiate between citizens and aliens. The first way is walked by communists who did attempted to conquer the whole world, forcing the redistribution everywhere. Their slogan mentioned exactly this point. The second way is to axiomatize that aliens are less of a person, therefore not included into solidarity, altruism, unity. The national-socialists chosen that way. Both are self-consistent philosophies that were not proven to be wrong, they were simply defeated. The national-socialists lost WWII, the communists were abandoned by the people who wanted the higher capitalists life standards.
Unlike communists and national-socialists, the social-democrats are not followers of a different philosophy, they are simply wrong and if they would be rationals, they could easily be defeated by the simple question: "why don't you equally help the poor and unfortunate around the World?" Please note that "I want but can't" is objectively not true as they could send more aid to Africa (at the cost of taxing more or giving less welfare to citizens). Also the "it's not my business" is not true, since accepting that idea would mean to stop all kind of country sized welfare and limit the redistribution to micro-communities (simple example: why do the tax of a Houston businessman goes to a Seattle welfare-recipient but not to a Mexican immigrant in Houston?).
Despite social-democracy is obviously wrong, it's pretty widespread, because it's a psychological symptom. It's the rationalization of being social, being governed by pre-historic subroutines. These subroutines demand to help in-group members as they are likely to have similar genetics while hostile to out-group members who are merely competitors in the race of spreading genes. The social wants to help the "unfortunate" country-mate as he is "one of us", but doesn't want to help the alien as he belongs to "them". Giving money to Africans is "nice" (conspicuous waste, form of show of how rich we are), but not "our duty".
While the social-democracy is logically flawed, its followers cannot be converted as their "beliefs" are merely rationalizations of underlying irrational psychological schemes. Defeating social-democracy cannot be achieved by philosophical talks, as they won't listen and act irrationally like calling anyone questioning their beliefs "evil" (theoretically the speaker being evil does not invalidate his speech). We also can't defeat it as communism was defeated since the people are willing to live on a lower life standard rather than "being evil". Theoretically social-democracy can be cleansed from the planet in a war as a non-welfare capitalist country is stronger and able to form a stronger army, but it needs one country to turn first (which is impossible due to the first 2 reasons).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niet van mij, maar van hier
From the axiomatic values set of rules can be deduced logically. They manage the everyday life.
Socialists do cite values like solidarity, altruism, equality. From these values a system of sharing is logically derived. If I have more, than I should help the one with less to make us more equal, and also I shouldn't blame him for having less. The technical system for it is tax-welfare: take from the rich and give to the poor. So far so good.
However add aliens to the system: foreigners, immigrants, illegal immigrants. The above values do not differentiate between them and insider people. So if we follow logic, we must distribute the taxed money according to the depth of need the people in. Obviously the disaster victims and the starving Africans would win. However in reality the social-democratic systems distribute the taxed money to citizens who have much-much more than the mentioned ones. Also, immigrants are not equal recipients of the welfare despite they live in the country. On the top of that taxation affects citizens only and social democrats don't even try to tax people living abroad.
If we follow the logic properly we must either include everyone to the re-distribution or add another axioms to explain why we differentiate between citizens and aliens. The first way is walked by communists who did attempted to conquer the whole world, forcing the redistribution everywhere. Their slogan mentioned exactly this point. The second way is to axiomatize that aliens are less of a person, therefore not included into solidarity, altruism, unity. The national-socialists chosen that way. Both are self-consistent philosophies that were not proven to be wrong, they were simply defeated. The national-socialists lost WWII, the communists were abandoned by the people who wanted the higher capitalists life standards.
Unlike communists and national-socialists, the social-democrats are not followers of a different philosophy, they are simply wrong and if they would be rationals, they could easily be defeated by the simple question: "why don't you equally help the poor and unfortunate around the World?" Please note that "I want but can't" is objectively not true as they could send more aid to Africa (at the cost of taxing more or giving less welfare to citizens). Also the "it's not my business" is not true, since accepting that idea would mean to stop all kind of country sized welfare and limit the redistribution to micro-communities (simple example: why do the tax of a Houston businessman goes to a Seattle welfare-recipient but not to a Mexican immigrant in Houston?).
Despite social-democracy is obviously wrong, it's pretty widespread, because it's a psychological symptom. It's the rationalization of being social, being governed by pre-historic subroutines. These subroutines demand to help in-group members as they are likely to have similar genetics while hostile to out-group members who are merely competitors in the race of spreading genes. The social wants to help the "unfortunate" country-mate as he is "one of us", but doesn't want to help the alien as he belongs to "them". Giving money to Africans is "nice" (conspicuous waste, form of show of how rich we are), but not "our duty".
While the social-democracy is logically flawed, its followers cannot be converted as their "beliefs" are merely rationalizations of underlying irrational psychological schemes. Defeating social-democracy cannot be achieved by philosophical talks, as they won't listen and act irrationally like calling anyone questioning their beliefs "evil" (theoretically the speaker being evil does not invalidate his speech). We also can't defeat it as communism was defeated since the people are willing to live on a lower life standard rather than "being evil". Theoretically social-democracy can be cleansed from the planet in a war as a non-welfare capitalist country is stronger and able to form a stronger army, but it needs one country to turn first (which is impossible due to the first 2 reasons).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Niet van mij, maar van hier
29 okt 2010
- meld ongepast verhaal
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.