Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on November 20, 2014, 10:18:04 AM

user[name]18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

Quote from: username18444 on November 20, 2014, 11:15:24 AM

Quote from: UnunoctiumTesticles on November 20, 2014, 10:19:27 AM

user[name]18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

Quote from: username18333 on November 11, 2014, 06:53:07 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 11, 2014, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: username18333 on November 10, 2014, 06:54:57 PM

Quote from: BADecker on November 09, 2014, 08:56:26 PM

Quote from: Gronthaing on November 09, 2014, 07:23:34 PM

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on November 09, 2014, 05:49:47 AM

I agree with your assessment, but I think the reason you don't see strong state socialism in a strong democracy is that the state is too corrupted in such a situation. Those with power are seldom (if ever) in the same boat with the people they make the rules for, but with state socialism this disparity is even less tolerable since the the point of the system is to share the means of production much more equitably than ever happens.

I sort of agree. If you look at the Soviet Union for example, it was pretty far from what a socialist society is supposed to be. Workers had no control over means of production, or much of anything else really. It was more of a totalitarian state. But you have to remember there are several ways to achieve socialism, not just through state socialism. Libertarian socialism for example, specifically rejects the idea of using existing state structures to achieve socialism, tries to avoid large concentrations of power, and instead focuses on more direct forms of democracy.

Democracy IS a large concentration of power. Democracy is where the 51% or more rule over the 49% or less. At least they think that they do. What happens is that there is a small group that promotes a so-called democracy vote in such a way that benefits the small group over everyone else.

Formal - big "L" - Libertarianism might promote anything. But TRUE libertarianism - small "l" - promotes the simple common law of the people. This common law is, "Complete freedom as long as you harm no-one or damage his property." The only exception is that there may be completely voluntary associations formed, and inside those associations there may be some form of " association government" that is not entirely libertarian, but it is always voluntary.

Romanticism about "harm" and "property" will not surmount those ills most often attributed thereto: there is no harm without tyranny, and only a despot may retain property.

It seems that most people have a difficult time in finding the basic, bottom-line ideas surrounding much of anything. The libertarian idea which is, bottom-line, the golden rule, is only the basis. It is the goal that should be looked at in all kinds of operations, personal or governmental. In complex situations, there will be complex governmental operations. The libertarian goal should remain the thing strived for.

For these, then, your golden rule is my tyranny, and your libertarian is my despot.