England was killed by an idea

[Truth in love]

I know exactly what it is, what it's based on, and how it's implemented because I've studied it in depth. You simply do not know what you're talking about and using, not Jesus' words, but secular right-wing propaganda.

You are not telling the Truth that Jesus insisted we must do, and I don't like dealing with people who just talk-the-talk but don't walk-the-walk. Thus, this is our last discussion.

You know you call me a lair a lot. Kind of tired of it.

Either discuss the issue or go away, but seriously the not "bearing false witness bit" would be a useful rule. And hey that's in the Bible.

IF I'm wrong about something talk about it. I'm not a fan of the never ending attacks on my intelligence and integrity. I'm not into propaganda. I'm into reality. Show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Truth in love]

The laws in Leviticus 25 were given by god. They weren't voluntary.

The Israelites had a theocracy. That came to an end. We are not supposed to have one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, in some cases they work, in some cases they are limited in what work they can do. However every dollar of goods they have that they did not work for is more than a dollar of goods that someone else worked for and does not have.

So? It helps a lot of people who need it. Like me, I am medically needy. Those "dollars I didn't earn" (I did) help me to keep working.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Most of what you mentioned above are not the job of the government.

It's became it's job over the years. Like that order to protect and promote the general welfare of the public.

We are not supposed to have a theocracy. That is my point. The government should stop trying to run a church (Welfare marriages etc.)

That's not running a church. There are no set of beliefs, rituals, spiritual leaders, or anything of the other criteria used to determine if it's a religion or not. Having welfare problems is not running a church.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I don't know the exact era he was referring to. what was done to the people is they were placed in housing units, told they did not need to put in effort to support themselves and many have lost sight and hope of providing for their own needs.

Okay @Truth in love: I don’t know anything about you - age, education, culture, faith, where you grew up on the planet or where you live now (I’m not asking, by the way) - but I’ve been alive for awhile, am English and know my history rather well …and, I realise that you may not like me saying this, but I feel that I have to let you know that what this Smoot person, according to you, has written there; that is an actual lie.

I’m sorry.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I’m sorry.

Why? England makes some efforts to take care of its people. Why be sorry to point out what is right, what is wrong, and what you know far more certainly than the one making fallacious claims?
(And send some fecking potatoes next time)

 

[Valjean]

It can be done by both since the government is an extension of us in a representative democracy like we and the Scandinavian countries have. Plus, I posted earlier that part of the key to this understanding is the Parable of the Widow' Mite that you obviously just blew off.

Goodbye.

But the US is not a representative democracy. Its an oligarchy of corporate interests, and the vast majority of media are owned by , and reflect the interests and opinions of, the corporations.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy

 

[Valjean]

In capitalism people can get a lot of power. I as a person always have the options to not take part in their system. In Socialism the power is held by a monopoly and if I don't want to play their game I'm going to prison or some other serious punishment.

No! This does not reflect the definition of 'socialism'. Socialism is the opposite of a power monopoly. Socialism is radical democracy.

Once again, you're making up your own definitions.

If the factory owner can be a abusive jerks whats to stop those in power of the state?

The state as a democracy?

 

[Valjean]

Funny. It seems that people can't afford their care even there. (link below). I've spoken to many people the medical care is limited and when the fund runs out you often don't get a big bill AND you don't get medical care.

When the Stars of <em>Titanic</em> Helped Pay the Bills for the Last <em>Titanic</em> Survivor

Ordinary, working-class Brits discuss their healthcare system:

 

[Valjean]

Socialism is control. It has some nice lipstick, buts its still a pig.

You say this, but it's just not so. Can you give some examples?

When is the state not invested in growing its own power?

When it's socialist? When it's a non-profit people's co-op?

If the state wants me to X and I do Y what happens?

Depends what X and Y are. Few states tolerate indiscriminate murder. But democratic, socialist states tend to be much more tolerant of dissent, alternative lifestyles, and unorthodox personal choices than hierarchical states or states with a ruling class.

So where is this greet utopia running?

Alas, there are no utopias. True socialist societies tend to be small or short-lived, but social indices reflect a positive correlation between states with more socialist/democratic policies and happiness, prosperity, &c.
World Happiness Index 2022 Country wise Rank & Report
https://worldpopulace.com/freedom-index-by-country/
Rankings :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2021

Remember, when America was founded the idea that people could govern themselves, without a monarch or some kind of centralized power, was considered ridiculous.

I already pointed out that Sweden is not it. You reject Russa and China. Denmark has very low wealth per capita vs freeer states. Last I looked nearly every European nation greatly limited access to colleges and guns. So where is it working well?

Few Europeans would trade their democracies, healthcare or education systems for the American systems.

You mention Swedish and Danish colleges? Not only are they rated better than American institutions, but they're tuition-free. In fact, Denmark even pays students a stipend.

America has free (publicly funded) police and basic education. Other services: healthcare, higher education, &c, are privatized, for-profit businesses.

 

[Valjean]

The laws in Leviticus 25 were given by god. They weren't voluntary.

That's a faith-based opinion, ie: unfounded; not evidence based.
Other religions make similar declarations about their doctrines -- with just as much evidence.

So how are we to decide? Reason? No, that would be secular approach, not religious. Utility? Again, secular.

In general, people don't think about these things, they feel. They accept what they're raised with, what's familiar, what's popular.

 

[Valjean]

Truth in love said: ↑
Most of what you mentioned above are not the job of the government.

So what, in your opinion, is the job of government?
Isn't government a social contract; an agreement among a group of people to help and care for each other, like a family, for everyone's benefit?
Isn't government meant to be a mutual, self-help society?

 

[Sand Dancer]

That's a faith-based opinion, ie: unfounded; not evidence based.
Other religions make similar declarations about their doctrines -- with just as much evidence.

So how are we to decide? Reason? No, that would be secular approach, not religious. Utility? Again, secular.

In general, people don't think about these things, they feel. They accept what they're raised with, what's familiar, what's popular.

Well, the religious right sure quotes Leviticus 18:22 enough, so I figured it must be set in stone, no pun intended.

 

[Truth in love]

So? It helps a lot of people who need it. Like me, I am medically needy. Those "dollars I didn't earn" (I did) help me to keep working.

And those who paid for it were harmed.

I'm not down playing the need. I see the need everyday. The methods matter. A system where the giver does so by choice not threat of jail, or gun encourages the giver to care more about the receiver. When the receiver knows that the giver cared about them they also feel better.

The community that is built is one of caring and love. Also in many cases it is highly efficient where as the government systems require a sizable bureaucracy to run.

In a willing charity situation I decide how much I can spare and I give. I might give more time one month and more money the next.

 

[Truth in love]

It's became it's job over the years. Like that order to protect and promote the general welfare of the public.

That's not running a church. There are no set of beliefs, rituals, spiritual leaders, or anything of the other criteria used to determine if it's a religion or not. Having welfare problems is not running a church.

Prompting the general welfare is not a blank check to bypass all the protections and limits in the Constitution. (These guys haggled for weeks on end about every word they would not have written a ignore all clause).


There are beliefs which are taught and mandated. Including but not limited to what grounds may be used to decide who works for you in most industries, how much they need to be paid, what marriage is. Most recently for many a denial of biology and what a women is. Those rejecting these beliefs are shamed and in many cases punished.
We have rituals. From graduations to army metals. One cold even argue abortions on this.
We don't have "spiritual" leaders we have "science" leaders who proclaim what reality is, demand obedience and punish those who don't comply.
The most widely accepted criteria of a religion in the US at the time the constitution was founded was posted by me a few steps back. Welfare is in the religion domain.

 

[Truth in love]

Okay @Truth in love: I don’t know anything about you - age, education, culture, faith, where you grew up on the planet or where you live now (I’m not asking, by the way) - but I’ve been alive for awhile, am English and know my history rather well …and, I realise that you may not like me saying this, but I feel that I have to let you know that what this Smoot person, according to you, has written there; that is an actual lie.

I’m sorry.


Humbly
Hermit

One can debate the extent to which is was killed, but adopting socialism, but it was clearly harmed a great deal. Going from World power to almost side note in Europe is a notable decline.

 

[Truth in love]

No! This does not reflect the definition of 'socialism'. Socialism is the opposite of a power monopoly. Socialism is radical democracy.

Once again, you're making up your own definitions.
The state as a democracy?

On paper maybe, but please show me where the socialist government is not hording power. Not forcing things on the people.


From Websters
socialism
noun so·cial·ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm
\
Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

National Geographic
Socialism
Socialism is a political and economic system wherein property and resources are owned in common or by the state.


Socialism
"In a purely socialist system, all legal production and distribution decisions are made by the government, and individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare. The government determines the output and pricing levels of these goods and services."


Not sure where I'm wrong on this.

 

[England my lionheart]

"England was killed by an idea: the idea that the weak, indolent and profligate must be supported by
the strong, industrious, and the frugal—to the degree that tax consumers will have a living standard
comparable to that of taxpayers; the idea that government exists for the purpose of plundering those who
work to give the product of their labor to those who do not work. The economic and social cannibalism produced by this communist-socialist idea will destroy any society which adopts it and clings to it as a basic principle—any society." -Dan Smoot 1968

Imo the thing that killed England and will kill us all is the industrial revolution,we’re all just waiting for the coupe de grace imo.

 

[Truth in love]

You say this, but it's just not so. Can you give some examples?

When it's socialist? When it's a non-profit people's co-op?
Depends what X and Y are. Few states tolerate indiscriminate murder. But democratic, socialist states tend to be much more tolerant of dissent, alternative lifestyles, and unorthodox personal choices than hierarchical states or states with a ruling class.
Alas, there are no utopias. True socialist societies tend to be small or short-lived, but social indices reflect a positive correlation between states with more socialist/democratic policies and happiness, prosperity, &c.
World Happiness Index 2022 Country wise Rank & Report
https://worldpopulace.com/freedom-index-by-country/
Rankings :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2021

Remember, when America was founded the idea that people could govern themselves, without a monarch or some kind of centralized power, was considered ridiculous.
Few Europeans would trade their democracies, healthcare or education systems for the American systems.

You mention Swedish and Danish colleges? Not only are they rated better than American institutions, but they're tuition-free. In fact, Denmark even pays students a stipend.

America has free (publicly funded) police and basic education. Other services: healthcare, higher education, &c, are privatized, for-profit businesses.

Now a non-forced non-profit co-op is a great concept. I'm all for those. When the right to choose and the right to control property are safe I love seeing people corporate. That is not how socialism functions. Everything being pushed in the US that I have seen for decades the names socialism, democratic socialism, compassionate conservationism etc. always are for the state/feds to run the system.

I've not lived in Europe just chatted with those who have and read about it. The education system in the US is broken. That said there is no such thing as a free lunch those going to college in Denmark etc are having the billed paid by those who did not go. In the US pretty much anyone can go to collage. In Europe it is common to track kids away from college if they are not great in academics. So there is less choice in Europe to attained collage and in the US we try to convince everyone that they have to go (in many cases to their economic disadvantage).

Freedom and happiness tend to be closely tied together. However a given index really depends on how it is being ranked. In the world population index we see Australia ranked very high despite their totalitarian covid lock downs.
The Freedom to own a gun is very limited in most of those nations.
I read a ranking of States in the US a few years back. Marijuana legalization was a major factor so states that were very free except for marijuana got lower rankings, but other drug usage was not included.

Cultural norms are also a major factor. The US is fixated on wealth and winning at all costs. Neither wealth or winning are bad, but the culture norms often take this to the harming of others along the way.

Anyhow long story short I'm all for more sharing and kindness, but 110% against move government control.

 

[Truth in love]

Ordinary, working-class Brits discuss their healthcare system:

Its not all bad, but when the counsel runs out of funds you have to publicly shame the system to get treatment. Having family that has had to deal with several major medical issues its scary that you can have your life decided by a bureaucrat.

Now there a mess in the US system (I work in mental health and see it all the time). Single payer is scary. I watched people written off to die by the single payer state system. Others sentenced to a life of disability to suffering when they could have been helped.

I would like a much better system than we have now, but every nations system I've looked to for a model has been scary. Canada had a surgery wait list website. Year back their PM went to a US hospital and paid cash rather than have his surgery for free.

In Tokyo it is a common practice to turn away patients in ambulances due to their being no room.

Brazil's healthcare system was bankrupt and denying treatment for skin cancer when their courts mandated they pay for sex change procedures.

If there is a model that is low cost, high quality and allows patient choice I've not been able to find it.