Socialism is based on the concept of the individual sacrificing his own self-interest for “the greater good”. Thus, socialism is fundamentally immoral. And while I realize that this is a primary tenet of fascism as well, in general fascists pose much less of a threat to true laissez-faire capitalism (which, unfortunately, does not exist and has never existed) and thus I worry about them less than I do socialists. Plus, fascists tend to be somewhat more honest about their true motives, so I respect them a bit more even if they are as fundamentally evil as socialists.
Socialism essentially dictates “tyranny of the majority”. Why I say this should be fairly obvious; however, if anyone wants an explanation I will post one. I’m just not going to now because it’s late, I’m tired, and I have to get up at 4:30 AM for an afternoon jazz gig.
Clearly, Kurt believes that selfish behaviour is ‘moral’ and that any form of cooperation is ‘immoral.’ I would like to see him justify this belief, as it flies in the face of conventional morality (but is stated with smug finality). Are we all wrong Kurt? Was Jesus just hippying out when he said “love thy neighbour”? Or was it a misquote?
Also, your point about the tyranny of the majority is just plain wrong. This is a feature of democracy (as argued by John Stuart Mill), which arises from the fact that majority opinion by definition excludes minority opinion, and hence means that democracy opens up the possibility that minority interests will be overlooked by the majority verdict. In socialism, the majority are not empowered to make economic or political decisions, so it is absurd to suggest that majority tyranny will occur in a socialist state. If there is tyranny in a socialist state, it will be the tyranny of the empowered minority (ie a dictator). If you are criticising socialism Kurt (which you should), get your facts right and do it in a constructive way. This is just hot air.
By the way, if you had argued that capitalism is the most productive economic system yet conceived (and left warped notions of morality out of it) it would be difficult for anyone to disagree. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that, in practice, capitalism is the only realistic means of progress (given the present level of knowledge). I would choose free markets over a socialist economy any day, but your moral argument is somewhat dubious, and your political argument is bizarre (though admirably creative). If we are arguing for capitalism, lets do it in a reasoned, fact-based manner. It seems to me that your aim is actually to debase socialism and socialists - if so, fair enough, but I recommend you read “The Road to Serfdom” by FA Hayek and take on board his arguments. He looks at the danger of a socialist state becoming riddled with corruption and eventually economic stagnation - an argument borne out by history. He comes down strongly in favour of capitalism - though, interestingly, he concedes that the aims of socialism are morally far superior to those of capitalism - the problem lies with the execution of the system. You need to take some Hayek and Freedman on board Kurt…then you might be able to pose a more substantial argument to the socialists you so despise.
I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of mine who insisted that a democracy was nothing more than a tyrany in disguise, I vehmently opposed by saying that there were various checks in place to stop that kind of thing happening. It would damage re-election chances, themedia would attack the government creating disquiet through demonstration and industrial action. But that got me thinking, what are those checks? In Britain we have the Lords (whose independence is being slowly eroded) and the monarchy (to a very lesser degree, but I believe I heard they could not sign through a bill (is that true???). Do any of you Brits out there think these house of lord reforms are a GOOD thing?
Having read your arguments above, it seems to me that Tony Blair operates by the ‘wrong’ sort of democracy where the majority dictate what everyone does. I think the rise of the far-right is just symptomatic of the middle road type of democracy that Europe has been operating.
Matt,
I think your friends view is a wise one. Did he/she go into details of why democracy was a tyranny in disguise before you vehemently defended your view?
I’m curious what their view arose from. I have previously shared my opinion on this matter, which is probably scattered about lost like a needle in a hay stack and I get the feeling I will have to share my opinion once more on the matter. Ah the torture
Where do you get that? There are many instances where it is in one’s self-interest to cooperate with others.
Alright…I (and I’m sure everyone else as well) consider the continuance of my own life to be a very desirable goal. However, I can not continue to live if I do not act in my own self-interest at all times–that is, I must be selfish. If I am not selfish, then I will die, because instead of eating myself I will leave it all on my plate and starve to death, instead of coming inside when it’s cold I will stay outside and freeze to death, instead of running from the bear that is attacking me I will simply sit there and be mauled to death. Eating food is a selfish act. Going in out of the cold is a selfish act. Fleeing from attackers is a selfish act. One cannot live if he performs non-selfish acts.
Apparently so, in one or both of two ways:
because you truly believe that to be selfish is wrong; or
you have a screwed-up notion of selfishness that involves doing things at the expense of others.
There’s a big difference between caring about someone else and caring about someone to the point where you neglect the selfish act of caring about and for yourself.
How else is it to be decide what is for the “good of society”, then?
But then that’s not socialism–it’s oligarchical collectivism (taking a line from 1984, I know)
And I agree wholeheartedly that it is–but I will not argue that. Why? Because that’s not the reason I support it. The ultimate reason I support it is because it is the only system, to the best of my knowledge, that in its pure form does not demand the individual subjugate his own self-interest to something else. I will never promote something on practical grounds, but only on the grounds that it is in accordance with the moral code I subscribe to.
Which I did–I argued for capitalism based on logical conclusion I reached as it being the most moral system from various facts about capitalism.
Admittedly, I haven’t read much Hayek so I won’t comment on him, but I have read quite a bit of Friedman’s work, and I get the impression that he too supports capitalism primarily because it is in accordance with his moral code.
The majority of the French populace who voted for the obnoxious racist Le Pen did not seriously mean to elect him President but merely to punish the conventional parties in power for failing to take command of the social problems specific to France.
The truth of this was demonstrated in the second round of the elections, when Chirac received the overwhelming backing of non-radical French voters (including the Left).
Thus the masses can be said to have consciously made the ‘wrong’ decision against their better instincts- again I am forced to come back to my original question ‘Does this indicate that restrictions to voting might be preferable?’
Kurt Weber seems to think that anarchy (in the strictest of political definitions) is the most preferable state of government- I would agree with him in an ideal world.
Unfortunately the existence of the State is necessary for the functioning of complex societies and thus we are forced to confront the extremely important issue of ‘how best are we to be governed?’
In the long term, France certainly seems to be an example to follow. It’s a pretentious system and I think that’s good, because it creates an atmosphere of intellectual expectation which the politicians are bound to answer satisfactory sooner or later. It also stimulates an intellectual environment. Most important, it’s a remnant of ancient times that has very little to do with patriotism and very much to do with universalism. And I think that’s a good starting-point for an election anywhere. It stimulates ideological debates instead of limited debates spiced with patriotism and what’s worse.
In France, all presidential candidates are to have equal amount of broadcasting time in programs that specifically deal with the election. That’s why the trotsky candidates got 10% and Le Pen his 15% or what it was. It’s a challenge for all candidates when they have so many concurrents not only in theory. And that Le Pen got to meet Chirac proves that the system functions, because now the PS has to evaluate its campaign and the main problem was that it was too mainstream. So, I guess the people will have got more of the PS they want next election. A party that doesn’t try the “bombing our way to power through commericals and a polished fasade” but instead the more intellectual approach. And that’s good. Because people shouldn’t be told to be stupid. Least of all in a democracy.
The solutions I can see to solve the “problems” of democracy are:
-Decentralisation:This will allow the the other two premises to be executed successfully. It will allow communities to be more self-governing.
-Direct Democracy: Public voting on all issues will allow people to make more decisions for themselves. It will also put an end to corrupt and loquacious politicians that decieve the public.
-Debate: The majority will have to listen to the minority in order for decisions to occur. This will end “tyranny of the majority”.
