“Religious” only means a routine set of activities, and instructive beliefs which are acted-upon, representing a ‘code’ or set of moral values.
People act religiously, without requiring a ‘God’ or set of superstitions or myths. The disparity between ‘Religion’ and social-ethnic bonds, are blurred. Even though a tribe/nation/race comes from the same stock, doesn’t mean they share all the same beliefs or value the same gods, but they can act in ways morally and politically, that is somewhat religious.
This is also why Modern-Post-Modern “Liberalism” is a semi-religion. They have a routine set of activities. They have instructive beliefs which are acted-upon. They have a code and set of moral values. Etc.
Sure, if you want to define religion loosely and figuratively, liberalism, Marxism and Nazism could quality, even an exercise regimen could, but I’m looking for something stricter and more literal.
When we think of religion, what comes to mind?
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Wicca…
Liberalism, Marxism, Nazism and so on may not come to mind at all.
One of, if not the key components of Judaism and so forth is the supernatural.
Buddhism may be the least supernatural of the aforementioned religions, but from what I gather, it’s still supernatural at its core.
Secularism taints and attacks mass Religions.
They don’t need to be negative and superstitious, necessarily, in my opinion.
However I realize my position is very rare.
As such, I see Liberalism as a form of new-religion, along with Secularist-Leftist ideology, a new version of slave-dialectic.
Religion can be defined between religious beliefs, and religious actions.
There are some people who follow the ethical teachings of Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad and so on, but are either atheists, agnostics, deists, or believe in the miracle of divine inspiration, but not in other sorts of miracles (walking on water, turning water into wine, etcetera).
What about classical liberalism, libertarianism, do you see it as a religion, and slave-dialectic?
Myself, I don’t see slave-dialectic as necessarily a bad thing.
I think we need to find the right balance between the people and the elite, rather than extremes.
Both of them are religious, in a sense.
A lot of classical liberals believe their rights come from God, or are Euclidean.
Modern liberals believe in a sort of original rich white male sin that’s inherited, passed down from generation to generation.
Rich white men can partly atone for this sin by showing kindness and generosity to poor black and brown women, but they can never fully atone for the crimes of their ancestors and contemporary rich white male supremacists, until all inequality between groups and individuals is eliminated.
Right, well, modern liberals can be very religious in their ethos and behavior.
A minority of them are spiritual too.
Some of those new agers, like Marianne Williamson.
They talk a lot about Gaia, mother earth.
They talk a lot about positive and negative energy.
They say we need to heal the planet by getting off fossil fuels, treating the poor, women and indigenous peoples better, etcetera.
Modern liberals can be very dogmatic which is a trait also found in fundamentalist belief systems
Classical liberals by contrast are far less dogmatic and more accommodating of alternative views
That’s true.
Altho I’m not a classical liberal, not across the board anyway, I really respect that about them.
It makes sense that classical liberals would be like that, because they believe in universal negative rights, they don’t believe in forcing people to think like them, whereas modern liberals have little respect for negative rights, only positive ones (food, housing, education, healthcare, the right not to be discriminated against or offended, etcetera).
Modern liberals are more willing to intimidate and initiate violence whereas classical liberals are more defensive.
What do you think of market socialism, (social) corporatism and state capitalism?
Are they fiscally liberal or conservative?
What do you think of affirmative action, hate speech, Indian reserves, compulsory education and vaccination, gun control, planned parenthood and safe injection sites?
Are they socially liberal or conservative?
And libertarian conservatism?
Fiscally/socially liberal/conservative?
Corporatism is the merger of state and corporate power.
This can be achieved in ways that exclusively benefit bureaucrats and capitalists, or exclusively benefit workers and consumers, or inclusively benefit everyone.
Corporatism can be good or bad.
Does the overclass often use it for bad?
Of course, but still, not all corporatism is bad.
I call the good kind of corporatism social corporatism.
Just watched a short special on Sweden (part and parcel of the Nordic Model) discussing their socialism from the 70’ and 80’s which about bankrupted their government. Now everything that was government run is privatized just to keep it operating and the dirty secret is the lowest to low economic class of people pay the highest taxes, not the rich, but the poor pay the most taxes. So I’m not impressed and am not sure what is positive there
With the glut of immigration burdening the welfare system, the skyrocketing unemployment and the immigrants perpetuating the rape culture and no go zones there since 2015, I find it hard to believe Wiki and the 2019 World Happiness report.
Obviously there’s a reason that these countries are being pushed as model countries, but I wonder if it’s for aboveboard reasons.
Does privatizing everything truly make it better?
What’s interesting is that you say progressive taxes, another article says flat taxes, and the interview with the Swede guy says higher taxes for the poor.
Hungary is an interesting case.
They have free education, universal healthcare and other social services, a mixed economy, yet socially they remain nationalistic and moderately conservative.
My argument is not that Finland and Scandinavia is a paradise, just an example that a mixed economy can work well.
I think you know me, I’m pro-free speech, gun and due process, and anti-immigration.
I also have some reservations about progressive taxation, I don’t think the working and middle classes should be taxed much, if at all, and if that means we have to cut back on some social services, so be it, or alternatively, go after the richest 1 or 0.1% even harder, make sure they’re not skirting around taxes.
I have reservations about them too, but I have reservations about ours as well, the Anglo-Saxon model, the cut taxes for the rich and spending on the poor, but bailout and subsidize private megacorporations anyway, model.
I think you mean nationalizing or corporatism here.
That’s not my argument.
The extreme left and right both offer simplistic solutions to complex problems.
I’m saying there’s a time and place for markets, nationalization and corporatism.
It’s a mix of progressive and flat taxes, I don’t think there’s any regressive taxes.
I’m anti-flat tax.
What is sad is that information can no longer be trusted it seems to me. How can there be so many different “facts” regarding the same things such as tax rates?
I thought that all healthcare in Sweden was covered by taxes, but there are still charges to see physicians, for prescriptions, and dental costs. To me universal healthcare covers citizens universally and all charges universally.
The 60% tax rate in Sweden is paid by the lower income folks and that’s regressive even if online materials is trying to say progressive or flat neither of which are probably true.
The high taxes are paid by everyone and the percentage goes up, the higher the income. Of course there are always more ways for the wealthy to get around taxes, though less ways than in the US.
Yes, you pay to see physicians, up to 150 bucks a year, then it is free. In fact, any medical costs going to a medical professional, like including physiotherapists, counts towards that 150. Once you have reached that amount, it’s free for a year. Think of it as a deductible. You’re insured, but after this minimal sum. Yes, medications cost, though if they are necessary and you really couldn’t pay there are possible solutions. Of course Thatcher and Reagan and the neocons are reaching Scandanavia. So the system is being piece by piece, slowly over time, reduced.
Children get free health care and dental till they are 18.
The system worked very well in many ways until the 2000s as all the finance sector and banking skimming, worldwide, meant that everyone had less money and got compensated less for actual work.
Imagine not having to be afraid of catastrophic illness reducing your family to financial rubble It gave workers real power in relation to employers. You really didn’t have to stay with asshole employers. Yet, the Swedes had better numbers as far as percentage who worked compared to countries without universal health care. They had a reputation as hard workers in fact, still do.