"Rights for the Rulers" Versus "Rights for Individuals"

Liara

New Member
The conventional political spectra are corrupted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

"Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between cultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community)."




According to wikipedia and other mainstream outlets the opposite ends of the political spectrum are either left-wing and right-wing or freedom of the individual vs communitarianism. A real political spectrum however would be freedom of the individual vs freedom for the rulers. As can be seen in de facto communist and socialist regimes, these are not regimes for the benefit of the whole community, they are primarily aimed at the benefit of rulers, meaning the government and a select few privileged ones in the community. It is the same with "social/corporatist democracy" (meaning the current system in western countries), with the difference that there are a lot of privileged ones in the community instead of just a few privileged ones like in the communist countries. This ends when the "social/corporatist democracies" have to declare bankruptcy because of over-spending and can't rely on cheap foreign quasi-slave labor anymore.

Or to put it more simply. A corrupted political spectrum would have Bush vs Obama.
A real political spectrum of rights for the individuals versus rights for the rulers would have a modern day Jefferson(Jefferson by the way even in the pre-industrial era wanted a restriction against monopolies in the Bill of Rights which is a good indication that he not only would crack down on big government but on big corporations as well. Contrary to todays propaganda by would-be tyrants, Jefferson was also against slavery as can be seen in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence before Congress "modified" it - see Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson) vs Bush/Obama. Bush and Obama do have some differences but they have in common that they believe in the rights of the rulers instead of the rights of the individuals. As can be seen in their support for offensive wars(which includes disrespect for the lives of american military men and women), torture of suspects, surveillance state, federal police state, bailout of wallstreet, destruction of small banks, bailout of big businesses, destruction of small businesses, support of factory farms, destruction of family farms, and the list goes on forever.



http://xeeatwelve.net/articles/common_law.htm

"Throughout history, there are basically two political philosophies. The first believes in rights for the rulers. While many names are used to describe this group, at the time of the American Revolution, followers of this doctrine were referred to as Tories. The second believes in the rights for individuals. Again, there have been many different names for them, but during the Revolution, the followers of that doctrine were called Whigs. Whig and Tory principles can be compared to Light and Dark, however, not all who spout Whig principles are working for the Light, but for selfish interests instead."
by Steffan Stanford

:bravo:
 
I am quit unsure where you want to go with this... What's your angle?

I, for one, always have troubles with the statement that "socialism is, de facto, not for the benefit of the whole community". How could such a system, aimed at helping the weakest of a society by the strongest, turn into such a hoax. The consequence being that in some countries socialism is seen as a disease or something obscene. But I am sure that there a countless of bible verses where helping the weakest is seen as everybody's duty. Funny how even the simplest of things of humanity become a playing ball of reality...
 
I am quit unsure where you want to go with this... What's your angle?

I, for one, always have troubles with the statement that "socialism is, de facto, not for the benefit of the whole community". How could such a system, aimed at helping the weakest of a society by the strongest, turn into such a hoax. The consequence being that in some countries socialism is seen as a disease or something obscene. But I am sure that there a countless of bible verses where helping the weakest is seen as everybody's duty. Funny how even the simplest of things of humanity become a playing ball of reality...

Ted,
Socialism is seen as something bad here in America. Charity is not. While on first look they both are good for the less fortunate. The important difference is CHOICE. Charity allows people to choose who to help. Socialism lets the government decide who is needy. Most Americans take a dim view of being told what to do.

As to the Bible. It is full of examples of the fortunate helping the less fortunate. These are lessons to those who have, to help those who have not. Again, choice.

Ultimately the goal of charity is to help, temporarily. With Socialism a government can completely control the population via the handouts, once they become dependant on them.

Socialism is anathema to Capitalism.
 
Ted,
Socialism is seen as something bad here in America. Charity is not. While on first look they both are good for the less fortunate. The important difference is CHOICE. Charity allows people to choose who to help. Socialism lets the government decide who is needy. Most Americans take a dim view of being told what to do.

As to the Bible. It is full of examples of the fortunate helping the less fortunate. These are lessons to those who have, to help those who have not. Again, choice.

Ultimately the goal of charity is to help, temporarily. With Socialism a government can completely control the population via the handouts, once they become dependant on them.

Socialism is anathema to Capitalism.
Exactly!
 
Good post, George. Now it all makes sense. LOL


Hokie, charity is all well and good until it's your money put into the equation. It's absolutely disgusting to see how many people pass by the poor on the street, pass the collection plate at church without putting any in, or simply throw away what they do not use. As you said, charity is about choice, and most Americans are too selfish to make the right choice. The "WWJD?" choice. So, we turn to force.
 
Good post, George. Now it all makes sense. LOL


Hokie, charity is all well and good until it's your money put into the equation. It's absolutely disgusting to see how many people pass by the poor on the street, pass the collection plate at church without putting any in, or simply throw away what they do not use. As you said, charity is about choice, and most Americans are too selfish to make the right choice. The "WWJD?" choice. So, we turn to force.
Where in the Constitution does it authorise the Govt taking my money & donating it to others? Also your side ignores outpourings of money following the Haiti earthquake & the Indonesia Tsunami. Just because you're disgusted is no reason for the Govt to sieze money @ gun point.
 
Where in the Constitution does it authorise the Govt taking my money & donating it to others? Also your side ignores outpourings of money following the Haiti earthquake & the Indonesia Tsunami. Just because you're disgusted is no reason for the Govt to sieze money @ gun point.
It's not in the Constitution. The poverty lines were no where near as clear and defined then as they are now. Back then, everyone's life sucked, save for the EXTREMELY wealthy. Now there are those who have, those who have not, and those who have a little more than the have nots.

As far as the outpourings following those two natural disasters, it doesn't exactly HELP your case that you're willing to donate money to foreign strangers in distant lands, but won't lend a hand to help a neighbor down the street in need. In fact, that actually makes it MORE PATHETIC. And friend, I'm not the only one who's disgusted by this extreme selfishness.
 
Ted,
Socialism is seen as something bad here in America. Charity is not. While on first look they both are good for the less fortunate. The important difference is CHOICE. Charity allows people to choose who to help. Socialism lets the government decide who is needy. Most Americans take a dim view of being told what to do.

As to the Bible. It is full of examples of the fortunate helping the less fortunate. These are lessons to those who have, to help those who have not. Again, choice.

Ultimately the goal of charity is to help, temporarily. With Socialism a government can completely control the population via the handouts, once they become dependant on them.

Socialism is anathema to Capitalism.

Socialism is seen as something bad because most people don't know the difference between socialism and communism. They equate the two when in fact they are not even related at all.

What people don't get in America is that Capitalism is just as Bad (although the Wall Street Collapse has opened a few eyes) as Socialism. It encourages people to be selfish and greedy. It is social Darwinism where only the rich shall survive and Everyone else is to fend for themselves. If you lose your job or get sick its your problem, because the last thing the government is there to do is to actually help its citizens when they are in a jam. Capitalism preaches no government help to those at the bottom, and all the helped needed to those at the top. (Sound familiar to anyone?)

The most common cause of bankruptcy in America is the death or illness of the primary wage earner. If you can pay the bills, you are out on the street. There is no mercy.

Capitalism runs under the guise that if you work hard you can get ahead, but it fails to mention that it is in fact a see-saw. In order for someone to go up many more must go down, and I say many because the economic pie that everyone shares is getting smaller and smaller. If one single person takes a big piece, there is much less for the rest of everyone else to share.

This is why in America, the rich are few and the poor are many and that this economic chasm is getting wider and wider. This recent economic upheaval wasn't due to socialism, it was due to uncontrolled capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Yeah.
Unless some changes are made, I can actually see the United States becoming more and more like a 3rd world country. Yes, I think the US will be a powerful country for at least another hundred years or so but the sort of life present in the US would reflect that of a 3rd world country. That is, a very small but very elite upper class followed by a gigantic population of a lower class with little or no hope of making it to the top.
Out of all the countries I have lived in, the healthcare system that most closely resembles that of the US is Indonesia's.
The REASON why many developed countries strive to make education and healthcare well funded by the state is because they want a large, educated and productive population. Seriously ask yourself. Is it better to have many well educated people or fewer well educated people? If you make it so that either the people have to pay for their children's education in full or so that a school's funding will be directly tied to the area's level of wealth, you are choosing the latter.
Funny thing is, the US government does hand out things like food. Now that I don't understand. It costs 70 Cents to buy a can of corn. Certainly you could earn three dollars a day right? RIGHT? So why waste tax payer money on that?
And if you've been watching Hoarders, some folks live in RIDICULOUS housing paid for by the government.
The problem is not socialism.
The problem is incompetence and this will probably continue to be a problem regardless of what system is in place.
 
Socialism is seen as something bad because most people don't know the difference between socialism and communism. They equate the two when in fact they are not even related at all.

What people don't get in America is that Capitalism is just as Bad (although the Wall Street Collapse has opened a few eyes) as Socialism. It encourages people to be selfish and greedy. It is social Darwinism where only the rich shall survive and Everyone else is to fend for themselves. If you lose your job or get sick its your problem, because the last thing the government is there to do is to actually help its citizens when they are in a jam. Capitalism preaches no government help to those at the bottom, and all the helped needed to those at the top. (Sound familiar to anyone?)

The most common cause of bankruptcy in America is the death or illness of the primary wage earner. If you can pay the bills, you are out on the street. There is no mercy.

Capitalism runs under the guise that if you work hard you can get ahead, but it fails to mention that it is in fact a see-saw. In order for someone to go up many more must go down, and I say many because the economic pie that everyone shares is getting smaller and smaller. If one single person takes a big piece, there is much less for the rest of everyone else to share.

This is why in America, the rich are few and the poor are many and that this economic chasm is getting wider and wider. This recent economic upheaval wasn't due to socialism, it was due to uncontrolled capitalism.
There hasn't been uncontrolled Capitalism for many decades, &, except for some in the Libertarian Party, not many want to go back to the Robber Baron Era. Libs seem to only see redistributing the pie instead of growing it bigger. The Reps, when they reformed Welfare in the Clinton Era made it a temporary thing to help out, not a lifetime of Govt dependance. The very 1st thing Obama & the Congressional Democrats did when they regained power was reinstitute govt dependance welfare(vote for me & I'll keep the hand outs coming!)
 
I am quit unsure where you want to go with this... What's your angle?

I, for one, always have troubles with the statement that "socialism is, de facto, not for the benefit of the whole community". How could such a system, aimed at helping the weakest of a society by the strongest, turn into such a hoax. The consequence being that in some countries socialism is seen as a disease or something obscene. But I am sure that there a countless of bible verses where helping the weakest is seen as everybody's duty. Funny how even the simplest of things of humanity become a playing ball of reality...

But you have just described how socialism does not benefit the whole community, it is based on the wealthiest supporting the poorest and the "whole" community includes the wealthiest.

To some degree I think socialism mutates into disease, the idea of socialism is a grand one and a noble one but as time goes by it mutates into a system that fleeces the wealthy to buy the votes of the poor and fund pointless programs that should be forced to stand on their own.
 
But you have just described how socialism does not benefit the whole community, it is based on the wealthiest supporting the poorest and the "whole" community includes the wealthiest.

To some degree I think socialism mutates into disease, the idea of socialism is a grand one and a noble one but as time goes by it mutates into a system that fleeces the wealthy to buy the votes of the poor and fund pointless programs that should be forced to stand on their own.
The "welfare State" "Progressive taxes" ect punishes the productive & rewards the unproductive. A helping hand should be just that, a temporary help, not a lifelong matress for the Idle.
 
The "welfare State" "Progressive taxes" ect punishes the productive & rewards the unproductive. A helping hand should be just that, a temporary help, not a lifelong matress for the Idle.

Unfortunately this is true, I am all for helping those who genuinely need help to get back on their feet but unfortunately these services are often abused by people looking for a free ride through life.
Until governments can find a way of weeding these people out of welfare systems they will never be anything more than a burden on the tax paying public.
 
Good post, George. Now it all makes sense. LOL


Hokie, charity is all well and good until it's your money put into the equation. It's absolutely disgusting to see how many people pass by the poor on the street, pass the collection plate at church without putting any in, or simply throw away what they do not use. As you said, charity is about choice, and most Americans are too selfish to make the right choice. The "WWJD?" choice. So, we turn to force.

Rob,
If someone has worked hard and saved, who are we to tell them how to use it? You say "the right choice"? Right for who?
As far as Americans being selfish, I disagree. Americans tend to be the most generous when it comes to disasters. USA for Africa, Farmaid, Hearin Aid, etc. The difference is many Americans are aware of the myriad of government programs available to its citizens and (I suspect) hesitate to give for this reason. Americans already give so much of their paycheck to charity (their own government). :)
 
Good post, George. Now it all makes sense. LOL


Hokie, charity is all well and good until it's your money put into the equation. It's absolutely disgusting to see how many people pass by the poor on the street, pass the collection plate at church without putting any in, or simply throw away what they do not use. As you said, charity is about choice, and most Americans are too selfish to make the right choice. The "WWJD?" choice. So, we turn to force.
You have a high GPA? If so, are you willing to share some points with the dense & the slackers?
 
Rob,
If someone has worked hard and saved, who are we to tell them how to use it? You say "the right choice"? Right for who?
As far as Americans being selfish, I disagree. Americans tend to be the most generous when it comes to disasters. USA for Africa, Farmaid, Hearin Aid, etc. The difference is many Americans are aware of the myriad of government programs available to its citizens and (I suspect) hesitate to give for this reason. Americans already give so much of their paycheck to charity (their own government). :)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This law does not only apply to religious believers. It can be applied in every walk of life. If I was in need, I would want a helping hand, so I offer it to those who ARE in need, since I find myself fortunate enough to NOT need.


George, GPA points are not renewable. You cannot give them away and earn more. Money, however, is a commodity that can be found in surplus with more people. And when I give away money, I can go make more. Apples and oranges. But a good attempt, nonetheless.
 
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This law does not only apply to religious believers. It can be applied in every walk of life. If I was in need, I would want a helping hand, so I offer it to those who ARE in need, since I find myself fortunate enough to NOT need.

But at which point do you stop?
I am all for helping people who have run into trouble, businesses close, people lose jobs and sometimes your health gives out but what about those that cant be bothered working who think pumping out kids by the bus load is a better option than actually going out to work 40 hours a week?

Helping people in need is a noble trait but handing out cash to lazy bastards just makes you a sucker and this is precisely where social welfare systems fail they do not distinguish between those that have fallen on hard times and those that wont get off their arse to better themselves.
 
But at which point do you stop?
I am all for helping people who have run into trouble, businesses close, people lose jobs and sometimes your health gives out but what about those that cant be bothered working who think pumping out kids by the bus load is a better option than actually going out to work 40 hours a week?

Helping people in need is a noble trait but handing out cash to lazy bastards just makes you a sucker and this is precisely where social welfare systems fail they do not distinguish between those that have fallen on hard times and those that wont get off their arse to better themselves.

Rob,
This is exactly my point. In many cases here in the USA we have individuals who seem to feel a sense of entitlement and are completely unwilling to go out a get a job. In too many cases they want six figure salaries to work in a convenience store. They would rather sit around and feed from the government trough than do any actual work. I think it is noble that you wish to help, but it seems a little naive.

You said that if you were in trouble you would want a helping hand. I suspect that you would only take the help as long as you needed it. When I was younger, my wife qualified for WIC. We got and used it. After we got our finances sorted out, my wife tried to get off the program. She had to fight with the people in the WIC office to get them to take her off. :bang: They could not believe that she wouldn't want to continue using it, even though we did not need it.

I have always believed that every government program starts out as a great idea, then the governement gets involved.
 
Back
Top