What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

[Augustus]

Marx is utterly obsolete (in fact he was by Lenin's time) and that you assert otherwise tells me that you have no real knowledge about the history of Communism.

I wasn't talking about communism, I even made that clear.

There is more to Marx than communism, that you don't appear to know this tells me that you have no real knowledge of Marx.

 

[Frank Merton]

Pretty much the same difference. Power goes to the head and makes us think we're more important, or smarter than we are. A legal/moral double standard is the insidious source of all evil--not money, fame, sex or even power. It "justifies" the unequal protection of our human rights. I think some people have the strength of ego or character not to abuse it, but they are rare. And we can never know if we're one of them until we're actually put to the test.

That is an interesting topic -- why it is that power corrupts. I think for the most part to achieve power one must already be corrupt, although there are exceptions (philosophical leaders, inheritance). Even those who inherit power however usually were raised in a corrupt environment. The desire for power is of course corrupting, and the desire to keep it, and the fear of assassination or other attack, which leads to the corruption known as paranoia. There are a few figures in history who never did become corrupt. It should be remembered that there is an important difference between the autocrat and the despot.

 

[Frank Merton]

I wasn't talking about communism, I even made that clear.

There is more to Marx than communism, that you don't appear to know this tells me that you have no real knowledge of Marx.

Well of course. How glib!

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That is an interesting topic -- why it is that power corrupts. I think for the most part to achieve power one must already be corrupt, although there are exceptions (philosophical leaders, inheritance).

Philosophical/religious leaders are some of the worst, from debauchery, pedophilia, corrupt charities, Jim Jones insanity to misdirecting people away from rational behavior in favor of self-destructive behavior and general irrationality and poor thinking ability a la Paul.

Even those who inherit power however usually were raised in a corrupt environment.

The thing is we only notice the ones who acquire or inherit power who are corrupt. I think there are great numbers more who aren't, but there's no way to know.

The desire for power is of course corrupting

,

We don't know that either if we don't know what proportion are corrupted. The desire or wealth and power can and are both done honorably and morally. All to often the choice to condemn them is made based on jealousy or class warfare. Look at the US, wealthy Republicans are bad while wealthy Democrats, of which there are at least as many Republicans, are ignored.

.....and the fear of assassination or other attack, which leads to the corruption known as paranoia.

Paranoid fear is imaginary and irrational.

There are a few figures in history who never did become corrupt.

My favorite counter example of course is Washington, who turned down the crown that was offered to him and eventually retired from power as much as the country would let him. Yet as truly amazing as that was, he was still a slaveholder, and didn't promote the religious rationality of deism--the two original sins of our country. But if they had tried to correct all of that at once they would most certainly have failed.

It should be remembered that there is an important difference between the autocrat and the despot.

What, a despot is cruel with his absolute power, while an autocrat/dictator may or may not be benevolent? And that will can change in a heartbeat. Castro started out as a populist.

 

[Brian Schuh]

A capitalistic, constitutional democracy is the only system that allows freedom. I am told that is the correct answer, but I can't tell you why. I don't understand why Democratic socialism can't allow freedom and maybe even be better. I'm not doing so hot in a capitalistic society, yeah I'm free to practice religion, but can't help but believe I would have a better life under socialism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

A capitalistic, constitutional democracy is the only system that allows freedom. I am told that is the correct answer, but I can't tell you why.

Because under socialism, the government, being its own watchdog, controls the economy and doesn't promote innovation or initiative because there's no incentive. If government needs more money just spend more with only superficial justification. Anybody squawks too loud, throw the mob some more bread and circuses.

I don't understand why Democratic socialism can't allow freedom and maybe even be better.

Because with the concentration of power, the power must grow itself until the corruption metastasizes further and further into the population. Again, the problem is the government setting itself up as its own watchdog with no peaceful way to correct it.

I'm not doing so hot in a capitalistic society, yeah I'm free to practice religion, but can't help but believe I would have a better life under socialism.

And loose your economic freedom and religious freedom as well? Right now, most advanced societies are fascist, with government not owning business but controlling it. With capitalistic freedom, the economy is better than under socialism, and that means there are more and better paying jobs. That's never clearer than the $15 dollar minimum wage socialists want. If forces businesses to lay people off, or actually close up, which weakens the economy and things just spiral down. This is why every voter should have a basic knowledge of economics. Every time you override the free market with government mandated wages, prices and excessive taxation, the economy suffers or crashes--and the socialists blame the capitalists and demand higher minimum wages etc. Add to that the possibility that some of your problems may be you, starting with who you vote for.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Because under socialism, the government, being its own watchdog, controls the economy and doesn't promote innovation or initiative because there's no incentive. If government needs more money just spend more with only superficial justification. Anybody squawks too loud, throw the mob some more bread and circuses.


Because with the concentration of power, the power must grow itself until the corruption metastasizes further and further into the population. Again, the problem is the government setting itself up as its own watchdog with no peaceful way to correct it.



And loose your economic freedom and religious freedom as well? Right now, most advanced societies are fascist, with government not owning business but controlling it. With capitalistic freedom, the economy is better than under socialism, and that means there are more and better paying jobs. That's never clearer than the $15 dollar minimum wage socialists want. If forces businesses to lay people off, or actually close up, which weakens the economy and things just spiral down. This is why every voter should have a basic knowledge of economics. Every time you override the free market with government mandated wages, prices and excessive taxation, the economy suffers or crashes--and the socialists blame the capitalists and demand higher minimum wages etc. Add to that the possibility that some of your problems may be you, starting with who you vote for.

I don't disagree with you. Capitalism allows religious liberty better than anything.

Consider that capitalism works best for those who have capital, they become the upper class. Other people choose instead of having capital to instead have a valuable service or product to be marketable, and they become the middle class, and then others are content to work for wages and are the lower class. In a free society, one can go from one economic class to another. Like an executive who is tired of having a lot of responsibility and decides to flip burgers for a wage. Or someone who wants to put the work in and create capital for himself and be rich. There is nothing wrong with this system.

But in reality, many people find that they are not in a class system, but a caste system. They are stuck.

Strict capitalism leads to a bunch of disenfranchised people who have no opportunity to better their situation. During the Great Depression, the 40 groups most hard up were identified. Social programs were created for 38 of them, with World War II stopping the completion of the New Deal. The 2 groups excluded were poor farmers and urban blacks. The New Deal is about a socialistic safety net, because capitalism had let us down.

In a free society, everyone should have opportunities to live in the economic class that they want to be in, of course considering work and ability. But in a society that is more of a caste system, there is no freedom. Once one has no opportunity to better his economic situation, that is getting close to disenfranchisement.

There needs to be both capitalism and socialism in a free society.

 

[Papoon]

Standing alone like that without giving a reason for your curiosity, and given that it isn't actually necessary to have read it to know what it says, it walks and talks a quacks like a challenge.

Get over it.
Read this...
[QUOTE="ThePainefulTruth, post: 4713662, member: 41619

Paranoid fear is imaginary and irrational.


.[/QUOTE]

 

[dust1n]

....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.

Religious freedom is a form of soft power over populations, since it's significantly easier to rule people by other means than dictating what nonsense they should believe in. History demonstrates from Genghis Khan to America to Early Muslim societies that it's significantly easier to just rule people by means of their livelihood.

Truth is, people are always free to believe whatever nonsense they choose, once they choose to ignore the consequences of people disagreeing with you, etc.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Religious freedom is a form of soft power over populations

But religion is used to justify everything, from slavery to genocide. Kinda hard to call that "soft".

since it's significantly easier to rule people by other means than dictating what nonsense they should believe in. History demonstrates from Genghis Khan to America to Early Muslim societies that it's significantly easier to just rule people by means of their livelihood.

But religion can and has been used to control people's livelihood.

Truth is, people are always free to believe whatever nonsense they choose, once they choose to ignore the consequences of people disagreeing with you, etc.

Kinda hard to ignore impositions like the Inquisition.