What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

That the British monarchy was controlling its economy was the straw man you inserted, knowing I was referring to pre-modern monarchs--most of whom we now call dictators.

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.

You're quibbling, mixing figurehead/constitutional monarchies with unlimited monarchies.

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

John would be a good example. Even the elite peerage finally got fed up with his abuse of power and forced the Magna Carta on him, which they and he proceeded to ignore, and never offered any rights to the slobs in flyover country anyway. And it was a long way from that to the figurehead you have today, unless you want to stop and quibble about every little step forward or backward. I'm certainly not arguing socialism/government doesn't come in degrees. A monarchy which has unchecked power over its subjects which are required to maintain their fealty to him/her, is in effect a socialist system because the government affects everybody as to the protection or not of popular rights.

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

Yes.

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

That statement is so general, it could be about anything. THE issue, the only relevant issue as to the function of government, is the protection by that government of basic human rights to life, liberty, property and self-defense, provided equally to all.

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

That sounds a lot like sour grapes. The only "America-centric" concept that I'm supporting is what I just said in my last paragraph, which isn't America-centric at all, but a universal necessity. But short-sighted socialists don't seem to worry about oppression until they become oppressed. Peace in our time....what.

 

[Augustus]

That the British monarchy was controlling its economy was the straw man you inserted, knowing I was referring to pre-modern monarchs--most of whom we now call dictators...You're quibbling, mixing figurehead/constitutional monarchies with unlimited monarchies.

It wan't a strawman, it was to make the point that there is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government.

If you are only talking about absolute monarchy, then you need to qualify you statement as even in pre-modern times there were many different kinds of monarchy. Some kings were even elected. You overestimate how many monarchs had practically unchecked powers.

That statement is so general, it could be about anything. THE issue, the only relevant issue as to the function of government, is the protection by that government of basic human rights to life, liberty, property and self-defense, provided equally to all.

And my point was that there is no system of government that is guaranteed to give this. In certain societies, liberal democracy is almost certain not to give this, especially when the country lacks the legal institutions and non-corrupt judiciary necessary to provide this.

Autocrats are actually often better at protecting minority rights (not always). If the people in a country don't hold liberal democratic views, providing them with a 'liberal democracy' isn't going to protect people's freedoms.

Even if the people do hold such views, it still takes many decades if not centuries for the civil institutions to develop to safeguard the democracy. A sudden transition to democracy can make this process slower than a gradual autocratic transformation.

However, it is true that autocrats are not necessarily even relatively benevolent.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It wan't a strawman, it was to make the point that there is no singular 'monarchy' as a system of government.

Quibbling by any other expression.....

If you are only talking about absolute monarchy, then you need to qualify you statement as even in pre-modern times there were many different kinds of monarchy. Some kings were even elected. You overestimate how many monarchs had practically unchecked powers.

Checked only by the politics of court, and who had how much power. The only restrictions were what you had the power to get away with or not. In any case, the everyday man was at the mercy of the King and his elite allies--thus the impetus behind the legend (or reality) of Robin Hood. And that you want me to delineate the difference between absolute and figurehead monarchies is just more straw man quibbling--unless it isn't obvious to you, in which case.....

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

....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.

Anarchy does not mean a power vacuum or lack of structure. It means a sociopolitical structure without power hierarchies. For instance, having communal assemblies for resolving disputes, or having an economy based around co-ops or industrial unions. (These are examples; there's a lot of different anarchist schools of thought.) I would advise reading some writings by anarchists or reading up on historical societies like anarchist Catalonia (1930s) if you want to debate about this. Many people do not factor in the (vast) body of anarchist thought when arguing against anarchism, or (worse) conflate imploded states like Somalia with intentional non-hierarchical societies.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Anarchy does not mean a power vacuum or lack of structure. It means a sociopolitical structure without power hierarchies. For instance, having communal assemblies for resolving disputes, or having an economy based around co-ops or industrial unions. (These are examples; there's a lot of different anarchist schools of thought.) I would advise reading some writings by anarchists or reading up on historical societies like anarchist Catalonia (1930s) if you want to debate about this. Many people do not factor in the (vast) body of anarchist thought when arguing against anarchism, or (worse) conflate imploded states like Somalia with intentional non-hierarchical societies.

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
   "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
   synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
   "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
   antonyms: government, order
   • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

The socialist's and anarchist's first tactic is always to attack the dictionary.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

1. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
   "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
   synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
   "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
   antonyms: government, order
   • absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

The socialist's and anarchist's first tactic is always to attack the dictionary.

Dictionaries describe how words are used in practical conversation. They do not prescribe what the "correct" meaning of a word is. The word "bootylicious" is in the Oxford English Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bootylicious

Yes, "anarchy" can colloquially mean "lawlessness" or "mobocracy". But that's not what anarchists mean when they talk about their political goals. If you want to debate against the political philosophy of anarchism, you should respond to the actual claims and viewpoints advocated by its adherents, rather than discouraging real debate with semantic red herrings.

 

[Augustus]

The socialist's and anarchist's first tactic is always to attack the dictionary.

A bit rich in a thread where you radically redefined socialism and capitalism to suit your ideological interests. All negative systems of government magically become 'socialism', and capitalism is redefined so that it now contains a mandatory 'fair and equal rule of law' component.

Capitalist monarchies, the birthplace of modern capitalism, magically becomes 'socialist' as they do not meet the arbitrary normative standards of (your version of) 'capitalism'.

Anyone who disagrees with your highly unorthodox (i.e. incorrect) usage of the terms is 'quibbling'. Someone who points out that the dictionary probably isn't the best place to understand a wide ranging and heterodox set of ideologies such as anarchism, is simply engaging in the mendacious destruction of the 'pure' language of the dictionary.

Your chutzpah is impressive

 

[Owneh]

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.



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



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.



Like modern Sweden? It is a monarchy after all.



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?



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



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

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



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.

Articulate, well put, and absolutely tore that guy up.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We don't want human sacrifices

What if a person freely volunteers?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Dictionaries describe how words are used in practical conversation. They do not prescribe what the "correct" meaning of a word is. The word "bootylicious" is in the Oxford English Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bootylicious

Yes, "anarchy" can colloquially mean "lawlessness" or "mobocracy". But that's not what anarchists mean when they talk about their political goals. If you want to debate against the political philosophy of anarchism, you should respond to the actual claims and viewpoints advocated by its adherents, rather than discouraging real debate with semantic red herrings.

A bit rich in a thread where you radically redefined socialism and capitalism to suit your ideological interests. All negative systems of government magically become 'socialism', and capitalism is redefined so that it now contains a mandatory 'fair and equal rule of law' component.

Capitalist monarchies, the birthplace of modern capitalism, magically becomes 'socialist' as they do not meet the arbitrary normative standards of (your version of) 'capitalism'.

Anyone who disagrees with your highly unorthodox (i.e. incorrect) usage of the terms is 'quibbling'. Someone who points out that the dictionary probably isn't the best place to understand a wide ranging and heterodox set of ideologies such as anarchism, is simply engaging in the mendacious destruction of the 'pure' language of the dictionary.

Your chutzpah is impressive

Well, well, a new tack. If you can't undermine a word's usage, you just dump the whole dictionary. At least you're consistent, subjective morality, subjective lexicography....subjective knowledge. "Dictionaries describe how words are used in practical conversation. They do not prescribe what the "correct" meaning of a word is." For that, I guess I gotta go to an anarchist or a socialist for the 5000 page, Unabridged Definitions of the Month, weekly--but not if I wanna keep my sanity. I'd say y'all work it out, but I know that's the last thing you wanna do.

Things must be getting bad, having to come out in the open like this. Internet sux don't it.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Kibbutzim on a global scale, each small community part of it's own. ,

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Kibbutzim on a global scale, each small community part of it's own. ,

Kibbutzim, as originally conceived, being collectives/communes, only work on a small scale, and only with volunteers. But the word has a much broader meaning now, with some of them becoming industrialized and capitalistic. In fact, the necessities of its survival have made Israel less socialistic as a whole.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Well, well, a new tack. If you can't undermine a word's usage, you just dump the whole dictionary. At least you're consistent, subjective morality, subjective lexicography....subjective knowledge. "Dictionaries describe how words are used in practical conversation. They do not prescribe what the "correct" meaning of a word is." For that, I guess I gotta go to an anarchist or a socialist for the 5000 page, Unabridged Definitions of the Month, weekly--but not if I wanna keep my sanity. I'd say y'all work it out, but I know that's the last thing you wanna do.

Things must be getting bad, having to come out in the open like this. Internet sux don't it.

I"m not "dumping" the dictionary, I'm affirming the dictionary's intended purpose. I don't know if you're aware of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive in linguistics: http://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/l...standing-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/

Dictionaries are descriptive. As such, they contain multiple contradictory definitions of many words. Merriam-Webster lists "sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex" as a definition of "gay", but also lists " happy and excited : cheerful and lively". You wouldn't talk about "cheerful and lively marriage" in a discussion of "gay marriage". Similarly, the dictionary you quoted gives multiple definitions of "anarchy". "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal" is the one that anarchists are talking about, with "government" being used in the sense of "the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc". Anarchists do not believe that a governing class should exist separately from the people who live in a community at large.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I"m not "dumping" the dictionary, I'm affirming the dictionary's intended purpose. I don't know if you're aware of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive in linguistics: http://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/

Yes (vaguely) but they, as she says in your own link, focus on linguistics and grammar, IOW syntax and sentence structure, not definitions--which she doesn't even mention.

A bit rich in a thread where you radically redefined socialism and capitalism to suit your ideological interests.

Lessee, leftists take a guy like Hitler who assumes de facto ownership of the country's industry, and because NAZIs are now about the only free game for them anymore (well ISIS recently, and their ilk), they decided to say NAZIs are right wingers, and since few would defend NAZIs against anything, voila, the fascism brand of socialism becomes right wing.

All negative systems of government magically become 'socialism', and capitalism is redefined so that it now contains a mandatory 'fair and equal rule of law' component.

It just happens to work out that socialism concentrates power (often at the people's behest), with the corrupt ones laying in wait to grab on.

Capitalist monarchies, the birthplace of modern capitalism, magically becomes 'socialist' as they do not meet the arbitrary normative standards of (your version of) 'capitalism'.

Of course to go there, you're gonna have to show how the government defending the individual rights I've mentioned against their violation by the double-standard elite through force or fraud, is arbitrary, or so often associated with socialism and its covert big brother, crony capitalism buying government largess. It's almost impossible to tell the difference between crony capitalism and fascism.

 

[Aquitaine]

It is when these questions and discussions come up that @Laika is greatly missed.
His perspective was unique to all others on this message board.
And it was always presented with intelligence, insight and care.

Wait, Laika is no longer with us? I could have sworn he was still around. :S

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wait, Laika is no longer with us? I could have sworn he was still around. :S

This is like a mythical monster that's supposed to strike terror in the hearts of Champions of Reason. If he is/was a leftist, he has a flaw. It's inevitable.

 

[allfoak]

Wait, Laika is no longer with us? I could have sworn he was still around. :S

[URL="http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/see-you-around.186022/"]See you around [/URL]

 

[Aquitaine]

See you around

Ah okay, thanks for the info.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Lessee, leftists take a guy like Hitler who assumes de facto ownership of the country's industry, and because NAZIs are now about the only free game for them anymore (well ISIS recently, and their ilk), they decided to say NAZIs are right wingers, and since few would defend NAZIs against anything, voila, the fascism brand of socialism becomes right wing.

Hitler fking hated communists and trade unions. There have been a lot of awful left-wing dictators but Hitler most certainly was not one. (inb4 some argument about it being called "National Socialism"; North Korea calls itself a "Democratic People's Republic".)

It is when these questions and discussions come up that @Laika is greatly missed.
His perspective was unique to all others on this message board.
And it was always presented with intelligence, insight and care.

@dust1n is gone, @Laika is on hiatus... the RF left is falling apart.

 

[Laika]

It is when these questions and discussions come up that @Laika is greatly missed.
His perspective was unique to all others on this message board.
And it was always presented with intelligence, insight and care.

@dust1n is gone, @Laika is on hiatus... the RF left is falling apart.

*stages an intervention*

I'm not going to participate in this thread in any depth but I've left a few videos below which should be very informative.

Milton Friedman was a leading proponent of the view that Capitalism is a precondition of Freedom (but I would emphasise he said it does not automatically do so). If you have the time, they are well worth watching regardless as to whether you agree with that view because you will hear these sorts of arguments repeated in many forms accross the media and academia. Where once they were on the fringes in the 1960s and 70s now they are almost mainstream, particuarly in the US and the Tea Party.it's taken decades for these views to become accepted as "fact" whereas before they were looked on as virtually insane. such arguments are very much the product of recent history and do not represent an "eternal" or "natural" view.

The Libertarian Right had an uphill battle changing the public understanding of history from largely Marxist conceptions in which capitalism is responsible for dictatorship, slavery, colonialism, poverty and economic crises to one in which Capitalism was not responsible and in which it was the fault of the government and "socialism". In the Great Depression in the 1930's Communists were very active in intellectual circles in the US and their views did gain quite a foothold in society and many people who were suffering from the depression were willing to hear them out. The ongoing legacy of racism and slavery also meant Communists had alot of sympathy amongst african americans.The McCarthy era was what destroyed it, but even in the 1960s and 70s you had a "New Left" revival. Very often it is portrayed that "Communism" and "Marxism" is an alien force in US politics, but it was very powerful intellectually for many decades and shaped public opinion in the US (and elsewhere) on many issues. the move away from it is still historically only very recent, and many of the view professed by the libertarian right today are not consistent with the views their predecessors would have made in the 19th century. arguing the economics determines politics, and that "free markets" leads to "free societies" is itself a very marxist position and has roots in the far-left criticisms and dissilusionment with the Soviet Union who then switched sides to become pro-capitalism. So this position is only superfically anti-marxist and is not consistent with views from the 19th and 20th centuries that society was "free to chose" to combine democracy and socialism. it is a product of the divisions of the Cold War.

The relationship between Capitalism and Freedom is primarily a debate over definitions and how we interpret the historical record but there are much larger discussions regarding the nature of freedom and power behind them. I don't agree with the OP but I concede there isn't a "silver bullet" against that position. acceptence of complexity and naunce in the argument is the only way to challanging it and recognising it has significant limitations as an understanding of history and politics. over-turning it remains an on-going intellectual challange for the left because it is so persuasive. When the argument that Capitalism is a precondition of Freedom is made with any consistency however, it does sound "counter-intutitive" in places and you can start to build up a picture of anonmilies and weaknesses in the argument. those are the areas worth looking into and discussing because it doesn't always make sense.

Oh, and Thanks @allfoak (being away from RF has been pretty good so far).

Spoiler: Capitalism and Freedom?