Quote from: m0gliE on February 22, 2016, 09:29:38 PM

Quote from: jaysabi on February 22, 2016, 08:59:48 PM

Quote from: m0gliE on February 19, 2016, 08:55:31 PM

I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.

Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.