What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

[Sapiens]

....or promotes freedom in general?

Given that the options are some brand of socialism, capitalism, or anarchy, it seems obvious that anarchy would allow (as opposed to promoting) the greatest degree of freedom. But a power vacuum will always be filled--first at the local level, then proceed to an upper national form. Such chaos and lack of structure to engender good order will rarely if ever take a benign form.

Power corrupts, and the greater the concentration of power in government, it will evolve into an inevitably corrupt system which is socialist by any definition. "But wait", you say, "dictatorships and monarchies aren't socialist". Really? What are they if not government control, and the bigger the government, the worse the control. Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) are merely where government controls business rather than owning it--a distinction without a meaningful difference.

II think you are confused. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole for the benefit of the community as a whole.

How many capitalist dictators/monarchs are there? While theoretically possible, the answer is zero, keeping in mind that fascism is effectively socialism.

Fascism, despite what the Nazis called it, does not feature ownership or regulation by the community as a whole for the benefit of the community as a whole

Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all dictators. George Washington, amazingly, declined to be crowned.

Your point is?

"But wait, but wait", you say, "under capitalism, the corporations are just another form of corrupt government." That's, true, if left to their own devices, but then that isn't capitalism in the first place. Capitalism is where the Rule of Law is administered by the government equally and fairly on both individuals and corporations. A legal double-standard is the root of all evil. If government sells special status, the capitalist system fails. It's not a perfect system either, but it's the easiest to keep watch over. And the tell that it's failing is when economic and religious freedom are increasingly limited, and the aforementioned double-standard increases.

"But wait, but wait, but wait", you say. "What does that have to do with religious freedom?" I only split them up to show that they are two sides of the same coin.

I suggest that you failed to do so.

One side is labeled socialism, and the other, theocracy. The only difference is the language and the politically correct rationalizations. It doesn't matter what you call it, or the demagoguery you use to sell it, the goal is the same, government control. So you have the elite, the useful idiots (who idiotically believe they're part of the elite), and the rest of us. Who are you?

Meaningless since you fail to show the two "sides" are even on the same coin.

 

[Frank Merton]

You don't want freedom of religion; otherwise we would have babies being tossed into the pyre.

 

[Sundance]

socio-politically: libertarian, economically: free-market economy.... how is this a question??

 

[Frank Merton]

I think democracy is the worst possible system if you want freedom. Majorities convince themselves they are right because they win elections and therefore have the right to pass laws restricting the freedom of everyone else. I see this most especially in Muslim countries, but the United States is also very much so inclined.

Whether a society is market oriented or socialist is irrelevant. Both suppress religions having to do with private education and private charity, and both are based on corruption and greed.

Libertarianism has its own bounds. We don't want human sacrifices, so some laws restricting religious practice is needed.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I should have used - their - to be more specific, - as that is also what I meant.

Yep! Plus this is one where I understand both sides' problems.

On one side, the need of refugees to get out of THEIR countries, and on the other, the need of host countries not to be overrun by refugees, they can't house, feed, or properly vet.

Especially lately, as terrorists are coming in with the refugees.

*

And the question remains, how many are terrorists--either military aged males, or those sworn, as all Muslims are, to conquer the world in the name of Allah and Sharia Law.

Quran (9:29):
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

II think you are confused. Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole for the benefit of the community as a whole.
Fascism, despite what the Nazis called it, does not feature ownership or regulation by the community as a whole for the benefit of the community as a whole
Your point is?

Fascist control is de facto ownership.

I suggest that you failed to do so.
Meaningless since you fail to show the two "sides" are even on the same coin.

A little light reading about anthropology will show that the separation of religion and state is a fairly recent social development. The tribal chief and shaman worked best as a team Even the Bible talks about "God" being unhappy that the people wanted a king. And church/state separation is still a bone of contention. A good case can be made that socialism is a faith-based religion, borrowing many of theology's tenets.

You don't want freedom of religion; otherwise we would have babies being tossed into the pyre.

Freedom means every individual possesses rights equally. No double standard. Those who violate the rights of others (babies, pyres, etc.), forfeit their own. Individual rights apply to government and religion.

socio-politically: libertarian, economically: free-market economy.... how is this a question??

Libertarian = free market economy, by definition.

I think democracy is the worst possible system if you want freedom. Majorities convince themselves they are right because they win elections and therefore have the right to pass laws restricting the freedom of everyone else. I see this most especially in Muslim countries, but the United States is also very much so inclined.

But democracy doesn't (or shouldn't) allow the majority to negate the rights of any individual. To do so would be to, again, establish a moral/legal double-standard.

Whether a society is market oriented or socialist is irrelevant. Both suppress religions having to do with private education and private charity, and both are based on corruption and greed.

But ONLY because individual rights are violated by, again, a moral/legal double-standard.

Libertarianism has its own bounds. We don't want human sacrifices, so some laws restricting religious practice is needed.

No government OR religion has the right to establish a moral/legal double-standard that violates the rights of any individual.

I think there's a theme surfacing here, and it's really a pretty simple one.

 

[Frank Merton]

You have invented a definition of freedom of religion to avoid what it really means. No freedom is without restrictions and bounds.

 

[Augustus]

A monarch owns or controls the means of production. Such a government, whatever the bells and whistles, is socialism--my college political "science" professor notwithstanding.

1. There is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government. They can and do take many forms.
2. The monarch doesn't control the means of production. Just because there is a king/queen, doesn't mean they own everything in the country.
3. I suggest you start listening to your political science professor as you don't really understand the concepts you are discussing.

And genuine, non-anarchist capitalism grew out of the US's separation from Gr. Britain--while anarchy and Napoleon were was the legacies of the French Revolution.

You have a 'Team America' bias going on where you overestimate how important America was pre 20th C and how awful and useless everyone else are/was.

So religious freedom in Iran is....?

I said: which system creates the most amount of freedom depends on the situation. There is no silver bullet solution.

This in no way means every system/country has an equal amount of freedom.

Adherence to the Prime Directive of honoring individual rights first without legal double standards, will sustain almost any form of government, and the freedom of the people.

These things don'y appear by magic just because you want them too. Most societies historically haven't been based around the primacy of individual rights, and the ones that have do so as a result of a historical evolution.

For a political system to be effective it must relate to the nature and culture of the society, have support and acceptance from enough people, have the required instruments of state (courts, parliaments, etc.) to function properly, and numerous other things.

You can't create these things out of thin air. A democratic system is easily corrupted by a self-interested elite.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You have invented a definition of freedom of religion to avoid what it really means. No freedom is without restrictions and bounds.

I've acknowledged those restrictions, that someone forfeits his rights when he violates the rights of another. Or, as I've expressed it more simply: Freedom is the ability to be as dumb as you want--on your own dime.

1. There is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government. They can and do take many forms.
2. The monarch doesn't control the means of production. Just because there is a king/queen, doesn't mean they own everything in the country.

Which is why I said "own or control".

3. I suggest you start listening to your political science professor as you don't really understand the concepts you are discussing.

Not being what you want to hear isn't a rational justification for.....rationalizing

You have a 'Team America' bias going on where you overestimate how important America was pre 20th C and how awful and useless everyone else are/was.

Uh Oh, are you my political "science" professor? You have the same knee-jerk anti-America attitude.

I said: which system creates the most amount of freedom depends on the situation. There is no silver bullet solution,

I'll go along with that as long as you don't include any form of socialism as a possibility.

This in no way means every system/country has an equal amount of freedom.

How can I disagree with the obvious?

These things don'y appear by magic just because you want them too. Most societies historically haven't been based around the primacy of individual rights, and the ones that have do so as a result of a historical evolution.

This is turning into a whole field of straw men.

For a political system to be effective it must relate to the nature and culture of the society, have support and acceptance from enough people, have the required instruments of state (courts, parliaments, etc.) to function properly, and numerous other things.

Rationalizations for the Third Reich and Sharia Law. You can excuse such culture and live that way if you want, but I want to work toward goals in the other direction.

You can't create these things out of thin air. A democratic system is easily corrupted by a self-interested elite.

As LBJ and Obama have so perfectly demonstrated. At least China is moving in the right direction (up as we're going down), discovering less painfully than the USSR that private property rights are vital. And where those are protected, other rights will eventually follow. And when they aren't protected.......

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Every-one here keeps talking about rights.

Where do these rights come from? I have the right to vote, because it was given to me by Parliament, but I don't acquire rights simply by being born.

One person's right also implies another's duty. If I have the right to property, it implies the duty of others not to take it away, and so the government protects my right by enacting laws against theft and fraud. So consider the "right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". What use is that unless those other countries have an obligation to grant asylum? And where does that obligation come from?

 

[Augustus]

Which is why I said "own or control".

So the British Queen controls the UK economy? That'll be news to her, she will be pleased.

Even going back 700+ years in England, the monarch didn't own or control the means of production and had their power limited by charter. The kng couldn't just walk around doing exactly what they wanted all of the time, they required the support of other powerful lords who owned the vast majority of the land.

By the time of the industrial revolution wealthy industrialists controlled the means of production. You seem to have got your knowledge of monarchies from fairy tales.

Not being what you want to hear isn't a rational justification for.....rationalizing

You are saying Britain was a socialist country during the industrial revolution and ultimately saying capitalism was created in socialist Europe.

Uh Oh, are you my political "science" professor? You have the same knee-jerk anti-America attitude.

I said nothing 'anti-American'. Correcting your idea that America created modern capitalism is not 'anti-American', it's just a fact. Saying you overestimate the role of America in the world pre-20th C is not 'anti-American' either, it's just pointing out your bias and lack of understanding of history.

I'll go along with that as long as you don't include any form of socialism as a possibility.

Like modern Sweden? It is a monarchy after all.

How can I disagree with the obvious?

If someone replies to a point with an answer that is totally unrelated to the point made, you have to suspect they didn't understand.

Why did you bring up Iran btw?

This is turning into a whole field of straw men.

Only because you don't actually understand. If you did, you would get the relevance.

Rationalizations for the Third Reich and Sharia Law. You can excuse such culture and live that way if you want, but I want to work toward goals in the other direction.

Who was talking about 'straw men'? Iran, Hitler, ISIS?

Democracy worked a treat in Iraq, eh? Why do you think it failed?

As LBJ and Obama have so perfectly demonstrated. At least China is moving in the right direction (up as we're going down), discovering less painfully than the USSR that private property rights are vital. And where those are protected, other rights will eventually follow. And when they aren't protected.......

I'm guessing you have no experience of living in the developing world if you think Obama constitutes a 'corrupt elite'.

Private property rights are protected by the law in such places, the problem is the law is sold to the highest bidder. Institutions of democracy can easily be turned against the people.

The law means nothing when it is for sale, no matter what the system is supposed to normatively provide.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Every-one here keeps talking about rights.

Where do these rights come from? I have the right to vote, because it was given to me by Parliament, but I don't acquire rights simply by being born.

Voting isn't a natural or inherent right. Inherent, naturally deductible rights (based on our full self awareness), are the equal rights for all to life, liberty, property and self-defense (all I've been able to come up with). And rights aren't given to us, they are only withheld--via a legal/moral double standard.

One person's right also implies another's duty. If I have the right to property, it implies the duty of others not to take it away, and so the government protects my right by enacting laws against theft and fraud. So consider the "right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution". What use is that unless those other countries have an obligation to grant asylum? And where does that obligation come from?

First off, you have a right to your property and others attempting to violate your rights would forfeit their own. But you don't have a right to asylum any more than you have a right to charity or compassion. And consider something else, what countries fence their own citizens in, and which have to fence refugees out or at least limit them.

So the British Queen controls the UK economy? That'll be news to her, she will be pleased.

Even going back 700+ years in England, the monarch didn't own or control the means of production and had their power limited by charter. The kng couldn't just walk around doing exactly what they wanted all of the time, they required the support of other powerful lords who owned the vast majority of the land.

More examples of a moral/legal double-standard. A stratified ruling elite oppress in the plebes. And Gr. Britain is a figurehead monarchy, I would have thought you knew that.

By the time of the industrial revolution wealthy industrialists controlled the means of production. You seem to have got your knowledge of monarchies from fairy tales.

You are saying Britain was a socialist country during the industrial revolution and ultimately saying capitalism was created in socialist Europe.

There is no pure socialism or capitalism, only dominant capitalism in a free non-double-standard society.

I said nothing 'anti-American'. Correcting your idea that America created modern capitalism is not 'anti-American', it's just a fact. Saying you overestimate the role of America in the world pre-20th C is not 'anti-American' either, it's just pointing out your bias and lack of understanding of history.

That was a reference to your patronizing "team-America" comment, which is stock-in-trade for those opposing capitalism--America being the one-time world center of capitalism, and is some ways still is.

If someone replies to a point with an answer that is totally unrelated to the point made, you have to suspect they didn't understand.

Why did you bring up Iran btw?

Sorry, I can't memorize everything I write, I need a little something to work with.

Who was talking about 'straw men'? Iran, Hitler, ISIS?

I do remember that, it had to do with my obvious comment, and you bringing straw men as an argument against what I was saying, knowing I wouldn't disagree with them.

Democracy worked a treat in Iraq, eh? Why do you think it failed?

Because it's Marshall Law, mixed with Sharia Law and weak-willed leadership/ROI here in the US.

I'm guessing you have no experience of living in the developing world if you think Obama constitutes a 'corrupt elite'.

Yeah, I've never been to Mexico or Cuba, but don't Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Vietnam, or the Philippines count?

Private property rights are protected by the law in such places, the problem is the law is sold to the highest bidder. Institutions of democracy can easily be turned against the people.

Only if the government sells the right to them--which is the core point of this thread.

The law means nothing when it is for sale, no matter what the system is supposed to normatively provide.

Amen, and btw, the biggest straw man of all--though I'll admit this is a novel way to use them--diversion pro instead of diversion con. Most people stick to one side or another, attempting to prop up an agenda. But my agenda is the Truth wherever it leads.

 

[Frank Merton]

I think the promotion of freedom of religion is a good thing in general, but with laws preventing any disturbance of the peace, any violence, and preventing child indoctrination, which is, from my own experience I know, one of the worst forms of child abuse. It puts young people with smarts and the ability to see the real world as it is through many years of fear and doubt and guilt until they either throw if all off or give in and become milk toast for the preacher's income.

Religion, however, should also not have special protection. It should be wrapped up with freedom of opinion and belief as only one aspect of this broader ideal.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think the promotion of freedom of religion is a good thing in general, but with laws preventing any disturbance of the peace, any violence, and preventing child indoctrination, which is, from my own experience I know, one of the worst forms of child abuse. It puts young people with smarts and the ability to see the real world as it is through many years of fear and doubt and guilt until they either throw if all off or give in and become milk toast for the preacher's income.

Religion, however, should also not have special protection. It should be wrapped up with freedom of opinion and belief as only one aspect of this broader ideal.

Ho boy. I'm with you in spirit, but once you open that Pandaora's Box, indoctrination becomes whatever the ones with the power says it is--more than it is now. S'why I think the most dangerous religion right now is socialism. Children can self-correct, I did. You can't force it, religion by any brand.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Ho boy. I'm with you in spirit, but once you open that Pandaora's Box, indoctrination becomes whatever the ones with the power says it is--more than it is now. S'why I think the most dangerous religion right now is socialism. Look at how the libs forgive Muslims anything, but want to crucify Christians for minding their own business. Children can self-correct, I did. You can't force it, religion by any brand.

 

[Grumpuss]

Ho boy. I'm with you in spirit, but once you open that Pandaora's Box, indoctrination becomes whatever the ones with the power says it is--more than it is now. S'why I think the most dangerous religion right now is socialism. Children can self-correct, I did. You can't force it, religion by any brand.

Exactly. I agree with this.

People were happier when monarchies were the dominant form of government in the civilized world. Education through religion was a privilege that the aristocracy bestowed upon the world. (Of course, how the aristocracy justified its existence and membership was sketchy.)

Look today when societies are taught that individuality is a thought-crime, and only actions that benefit the state are welcome. Hopelessness and division among every possible strata of racial, ethnic, economic and now-sexual groups, is the norm. No wonder the World Government has been allowed to increase its power is through its socialistic lies about wealth inequality, toxic lead paint chips and the need for mass vaccination!

 

[Frank Merton]

Exactly. I agree with this.

People were happier when monarchies were the dominant form of government in the civilized world. Education through religion was a privilege that the aristocracy bestowed upon the world. (Of course, how the aristocracy justified its existence and membership was sketchy.)

Look today when societies are taught that individuality is a thought-crime, and only actions that benefit the state are welcome. Hopelessness and division among every possible strata of racial, ethnic, economic and now-sexual groups, is the norm. No wonder the World Government has been allowed to increase its power is through its socialistic lies about wealth inequality, toxic lead paint chips and the need for mass vaccination!

It is wrong for parents, let alone schools, to indoctrinate children. Their skeptical ability is not mature and they are in learning mode where they set down as beliefs rather than as opinions pretty much whatever they are told. That is in my view the only way religions manage to hold people in spite of all good sense.

I don't think there is much a free society can do about parents who insist on doing it anyway, except in severe cases.

 

[Grumpuss]

It is wrong for parents, let alone schools, to indoctrinate children. Their skeptical ability is not mature and they are in learning mode where they set down as beliefs rather than as opinions pretty much whatever they are told. That is in my view the only way religions manage to hold people in spite of all good sense.

I don't think there is much a free society can do about parents who insist on doing it anyway, except in severe cases.

With God, all things are possible. No society truly suffers, and everyone is rewarded for their piety, cruelty or suffering in the afterlife.

Placing your faith in a hedonistic government over one's unerring belief in God is a classic mistake. Fortunately, God doesn't take it personally, and loves us just the same.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is wrong for parents, let alone schools, to indoctrinate children. Their skeptical ability is not mature and they are in learning mode where they set down as beliefs rather than as opinions pretty much whatever they are told. That is in my view the only way religions manage to hold people in spite of all good sense.

I don't think there is much a free society can do about parents who insist on doing it anyway, except in severe cases.

When your kid kicks a neighbor's kid because he's a bully and you correct him, that's indoctrination. And besides, some people are just a bad seed, evil to begin with. No amount of control or cessation of the teaching of children will prevent them from shining through.

 

[Augustus]

More examples of a moral/legal double-standard. A stratified ruling elite oppress in the plebes. And Gr. Britain is a figurehead monarchy, I would have thought you knew that.

You keep replying with unrelated 'answers'. That is what a 'strawman' is btw, you keep misusing the term.

This is not about the merits or otherwise of monarchies, it is about your statement that monarchies are de facto socialism. I replied that there is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy btw, just as it was hundreds of years ago. As have countless other regimes been too going back to the bronze age. Even constitutaional monarchies vary immensely, never mind all forms of monarchy that have ever existed.

Can you give me a historical example of a monarchy that meets your definition of socialism?

There is no pure socialism or capitalism, only dominant capitalism in a free non-double-standard society.

Societies develop over long periods of time according to their own unique situations.

Just because something works well for country A doesn't mean it can be magically transplanted to country B.

That was a reference to your patronizing "team-America" comment, which is stock-in-trade for those opposing capitalism--America being the one-time world center of capitalism, and is some ways still is.

It's stock-in-trade to describe people with a myopic viewpoint that can't see outside their America-centric concept of the world.

Sorry, I can't memorize everything I write, I need a little something to work with.

You could always go back and read what you actually wrote I suppose...

Because it's Marshall Law, mixed with Sharia Law and weak-willed leadership/ROI here in the US.

That you mention 'weak-willed' US leadership is why the 'team America' comment is valid and why you don't understand the world very well.

Choose your favourite leader ever, multiply their capabilities by 10 and it still wouldn't have made any difference. The best thing they could have done was to realise it was impossible to bomb Iraq democratic, and thus not gone to war in the first place.

Yeah, I've never been to Mexico or Cuba, but don't Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Vietnam, or the Philippines count?

Going on holiday is not the same as living there and understanding the culture and political reality. If you did understand it, you wouldn't be whining about Obama et al as constituting a 'corrupt elite' when compared to most other countries on earth.

Only if the government sells the right to them--which is the core point of this thread.

The point of the thread is 'what is the best system...' I argued that there is no one size fits all 'best system' as it relies on the nature of the society at a particular point in history.

What frequently happens is that the government do sell the right, actually that's not true, they take the right for themselves and their cronies. The entire country and its laws operate for their benefit. Corruption often increases in newly democratic countries, as does persecution of minorities.

Amen, and btw, the biggest straw man of all--though I'll admit this is a novel way to use them--diversion pro instead of diversion con. Most people stick to one side or another, attempting to prop up an agenda. But my agenda is the Truth wherever it leads.

What do you mean 'strawman'? You either don't understand what a strawman is or you really haven't understood anything I have said.