Democratic Socialism

Democracy:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Democracy is a system that morally bankrupt – and outright amoral – people gravitate to, using it to empower themselves at the expense of others.  It is not uncommon for the mobs to use democracy and “vote” themselves the “right” to victimize those that are an even smaller minority, than themselves, or unable to defend themselves against the mob.

Socialism:  A system of characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  The government is virtually all-powerful, and the people are virtually all powerless.

Democratic Socialism:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Combined with socialism, democracy transforms into a system of government characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  When unwashed masses gain this kind of power, the result is the creation of “nanny states”:  nations filled with, and governed by, people that believe that their rights are a function of government, as opposed to Natural Law, and that they are entitled to everything that they have a desire for.  Things government should never be relied upon to provide, democratic socialist works to provide, even if it means virtually enslaving producers, by telling them that people are entitled to their goods and services.  To this end, unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule raise taxes higher and higher, especially targeting the biggest producers unfortunate enough to have to live in their society, as their biggest cash cows, from which they can wring the most resources.  The government is virtually all-powerful, composed of unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule and the people are virtually all powerless.  As is the penchant in democracies, socialist democracies are also very prone to taking advantage of the weak and powerless, even to the point of taking it upon themselves to legislate ways to legalize their mass murder, or outright extermination.

And there you have it.  Two systems of government the Framers did not like, smashed together, like a bad Reese’s Cup.

And this is what liberals think the country would be best run by.

great-seal-of-virus-x

 

Update:  Internet liberals took it upon themselves to criticize my page, and my disdain for socialism.  This is me fisking his long response that he tried to have me get into, on his own page.  I told him that if he had anything to say to me, next time, do it on my page, because I have no desire to go to  his.  I didn’t go to his page to challenge his viewpoint, he came to mine for that.  If you do that, you argue here, not elsewhere.  Anyhow, here’s the link to his blatherings that he believes I’m obligated to respond to, for context:

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/democracy/

“Do we want to have a look at what an apparently hardcore defender of conservative values thinks of one of the US Constitution’s most important elements? For the record, if you think democracy is not enshrined in the Constitution, take a look here:

Here’s the key bit…

 

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Like most apparent liberals, you choose to re-arrange language to suit your mood, at the moment. Nothing in the section you outlined even mentions the word “democracy”, and elections are not peculiar to democracies. Even communist governments have votes (but they’re just not for the people). Socialist governments, such as in the UK, have votes. Voting rights are not something that only exist in democracies. Apparently, you’re unfamiliar with basic history.

NUMBER:

1593

AUTHOR:

Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION:

Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION:

The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review,vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

SUBJECTS:

Republic

WORKS:

Benjamin Franklin Collection

Hmmm.

For some reason, Franklin didn’t call the emerging government a “democracy”. Perhaps there is a difference? Again, in your mental dishonesty to twist arguments and gain 5 minutes of Internet fame, you avoid looking into such differences. Here, let me do the 30 seconds of footwork for you:

http://madisonproject.com/2013/09/we-the-people-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy/

You’ll see the word ‘election’ come up a few times too. I guess the principle of having the people choosing their representatives via a process of voting only applies when the people choose representatives that fit a specific niche. In other words, democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins.”

It’s funny you should say that:

democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins

because people that think like you (liberals) say exactly the same thing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not

Well.

Isn’t that a coincidence? However, you can keep getting exercise walking the strawman, pretending elections are only aspects of democracies, and not republics and constitutional republics.

Cast your minds back to a discussion I had on the subject of guns and Constitutional rights. It appears that the Constitution is to be used selectively – we can apparently ignore it when it comes to support for representative ideals.” Yep. And I just posted an article about how leftists are doing that very thing. However, this isn’t about guns, it’s about government types. Maybe you should try keeping on topic. If you want to talk about guns, that can be done in another thread.

The same person that I sparred with on that occasion is the person responsible for this article.

I quote:

Democracy:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Democracy is a system that morally bankrupt – and outright amoral – people gravitate to, using it to empower themselves at the expense of others.  It is not uncommon for the mobs to use democracy and “vote” themselves the “right” to victimize those that are an even smaller minority, than themselves, or unable to defend themselves against the mob.

No, actually the gamut, if there is one, is coming from you. Since you’re quite obviously ignorant of the mechanics of government, I’ll educate you: representative government is not endemic only to democracies, but also constitutional republics, like the United States of America. What you’re doing is throwing out yet another strawman, in publishing what is a clear lie, stating:

It appears the opening gambit is to accuse anyone who favours a system of representative rule of being an ‘unwashed leftie’, which, quite aside from being quite the insult to anyone who identifies as left wing, rather ignores all the right wing individuals who consider democracy to be a cornerstone of freedom.”

You seem to have quite a but of lies in you, even to the point of making up quotes and arguments (I don’t seem to recall calling anyone an “unwashed leftie”. Maybe you should show that quote, like you show others. Is there some reason you didn’t? I’ll bet there is.) I don’t know what country you’re from, but I’m from the USA, and, in this country, the Left has absolutely no regard for representative government. (By the way, in this country, we have GOVERNMENT, in the forms of such politicians as Representatives and Senators, and even Governors. We don’t have RULERS. I have found, however, that leftists, like yourself, do tend to like being “ruled”, and have no head for government. More evidence you’re really not well versed in what you’re arguing.) If leftists in this country favored “representative” GOVERNMENT (not “rule”), they wouldn’t have done things like lock other representatives with dissenting opinions out of policy meetings, and passed laws that were clearly against the constitutional laws that are the “…cornerstone of freedom…” in this country. I don’t know about how people behave in your country, and, furthermore, don’t care. In this country, leftists are constantly proposing and passing laws that are in clear violation of the constitutional “…cornerstone of freedom…”, which shows that they have no regard for representative government (but want to RULE, as you would suggest, through your language). Actual right wing politicians are few and far between. Many, for whatever reason, believe the GOP is the home of the Right Wing (which is patently untrue, as I know from personal experience). I couldn’t name even one such individual, off the top of my head. People that push identity politics, unconstitutional legislation, etc., are not on the right side of the political spectrum, and, are probably just as confused as you are, when it comes to words like “democracy”, and what kind of government this country actually has, and has had for hundreds of years.

Whilst Virus-X is keen to suggest that Trump is left wing (he even went as far as to assert Trump is a communist in one article of his), the fact remains that his support base is composed primarily of right wingers.”

Your rank dishonesty and ignorance increases with every paragraph. I’m not a coward, and I don’t have to “suggest” anything. I don’t have to twist language, like you do, and pretend words mean something they don’t, or that they don’t mean something that they actually do. I never ‘suggested’ Trump was a communist, and you know that you’re just lying. If you actually believed such a stupid thing (which is par for your course, really), you’d’ve posted that, like you try to post everything else you believe supports your narrative. Trump, himself, supports putting people with mental illness into the Uniformed Services, which can pose a threat to the lives of others. He is in support of murdering unborn children, and of private corporations that do such deeds, to the point of illegally and unconstitutionally taking taxpayer funds to finance such activities, and defending organizations that use those funds on television. He has proclaimed he has mysteriously reversed his previous stance on firearms, and yet, has taken no actions, nor suggested any to the Congress, to protect 2nd Amendment rights, just as he doesn’t protect the right to life, of the unborn. Among the many other things you’ve demonstrated a classical ignorance of, it’s the political spectrum, and if you’re European, you have a completely backwards view of it, from America. What you would consider right wing in Europe, isn’t in America, and what you would consider “Conservative” in Europe, isn’t in America, either. Trump’s supporters, at best, are Paleo-Conservatives, which aren’t Conservatives. Now, wallowing in ignorance as you are, you should go and look up what a Paleo Conservative is, before you go on.

After all, Trump ran as a Republican, the GOP has traditionally been associated with the right of the US political system and Trump played to that audience. It is understandable that some on the right wish to distance themselves from Trump and the Republican Party he now leads, but it is dishonest to place the blame at the door of the left of the spectrum.”

So much garbage to unpack.

After all, Trump ran as a Republican,” Meaningless. Your mental dishonesty prevents you from mentioning that Trump was a decades long, hard core liberal, and even stated as much, in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAHKGP10yc

In 2004, which wasn’t that long ago, he said he identifies more as a member of the Slave Party:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/politics/donald-trump-election-democrat/index.html

the GOP has traditionally been associated with the right of the US political system and Trump played to that audience.” More garbage. The only reason some people with Right Wing ideologies have moved towards the GOP is because the DNC is absolutely antithetical to them, and, as for the GOP, they haven’t been much better in their treatment of Conservatives. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was very much hated by many Republicans, unless they want to invoke his name to make themselves look like something they aren’t. Trump, himself, who was known to dislike Reagan, has done this more than once, and recently. Trump, himself, also said that the GOP is not a Conservative party, and that Conservatives should leave, if Conservatism is what they want.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-republican-party-not-called-conservative-party/

Meerkat Musings’ own mental dishonesty wouldn’t let him state this, because it doesn’t go along with his narrative, and inhibits his ability to make baseless, false arguments.

The bottom line is, Trump is an egomaniac, who will use and exploit whatever element of the spectrum he needs to further his own interests.”

trump-lying-asshole

One of the only things you’ve said that had any truth to it, in the midst of every other lie you’ve told, and I’ve never disputed that. Maybe if you’d’ve actually read the blog, you’d see that I am highly critical of Trump. I guess that, again, would take too much mental honesty, and it’s more convenient to you to insinuate that I’m a Trump supporter (and insinuate, because you don’t have the guts to come out and flat out tell the lie).

He is not necessarily right wing, but not necessarily left wing either.”

He’s not “Right Wing”, at all, and he supports violating the Constitution for illegal, unethical purposes, so, yes, he’s a leftist. Probably like you are.

I’ve digressed.”

shocked face

Several times. Lied, too.

Returning to the quote above, what can we take from it? Well, the idea of the majority persecuting more vulnerable groups is not native to democracy…”

And, you’re back to the lies and manufacturing. Democrats are the ones that believe the US is a democracy, and they are famous for persecuting “…more vulnerable groups…”. Ever heard of Plessy v Ferguson?

How about Segregation?

The Fugitive Slave Act?

The Black Codes?

Poll Taxes?

All the result of people that believe the USA is a democracy, like you. Democracy is a pox, as are people like you that seek to spread it. My great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather once wrote a letter to my great, great, great, great, great, great grandmother regarding this. 

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy.  Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either.  Remember, democracy never lasts long.  It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.  it is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.  It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.  Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.  When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.  Individuals have conquered themselves.  Nations and large bodies of men, never.”  -John Adams, the Letters of John and Abigail Adams

…and in fact, democracy tends to offer the best safeguards against the persecution of minorities.”

You mean like when the pushers of democracy voted against every piece of civil rights legislation this country had put forth? The democrat pushers of the DNC voted against the civil rights legislation, since 1866, to 1957 to 1964? Or when they – going back to

democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

decided they didn’t like democracy, and murdered the 1st president of an opposing political party, as well as created a racist terrorist organization that became a paramilitary wing of their party, and lasts to this very day? Or when those very same “democracy” lovers refused to have ethnic minorities in their political party? Or when those ethnic minorities they called “niggers” were going to be voting for them, for 200 years? Make yourself clear.

Whilst democracies can experience violence, these events are nothing like the violence that erupted during the Arab Spring, or the era of religious persecution under monarchies during the Dark and Middle Ages.”

Again, you digress into bullshit. The Arab Spring involved nations under dictatorships, looking to move into uncertain political futures that may, or may not, have involved democracy. And America is in political turmoil, thanks to you “democracy” lovers, and your calls for war and murder in the streets. If you count socialist nations as democracies, Venezuela is also a good example of violence.

http://www.newsweek.com/antifa-civil-war-november-4-really-just-few-protests-against-trump-702150

And now you’re trying to talk about religion, to create another strawman argument, in your alleged arguments against my politics.

Nice try, but your digressions aren’t working.

Here we had a set of very conservative, religiously motivated dictatorships, that sought to rule through fear and the idea of God-ordained leadership. This was not a good era for humanity.” More strawman arguments. Save it for someone discussing religion.

Another concept is that the desires of the people somehow override the rule of law – well, in another forms of government (such as a theocracy or monarchy) the rule of law is heavily dependent upon interpretation of texts and the whim of the successor. Neither options are going to offer any meaningful protection under law for the vulnerable or minorities.”

Again, go back to the link: ANTIFA (who are actually violent fascist liberals) have advocated for overthrowing the government, and the last big liberal president – Obama – got in trouble with the Supreme Court for interpreting the Constitution the way he wanted to.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/26/obama-recess-appointments-illegal-unanimous-supreme-court-finds

Is there some reason you didn’t mention that, Meerkat Musings?

It isn’t made clear by Virus-X who the ‘mobs’ are victimising,” To you, abortion isn’t victimizing anyone, so why would I expect you to be mentally honest enough to see who is victimized by violating the Constitution? ANTIFA has victimized people through violence, and the DNC has victimized people by violating the Constitution, and driving this country further into insolvency, creating a crushing tax burden, and destroying businesses, and the economy. When the economy is damaged, everyone suffers, but I guess you don’t care about that. After all, DEMOCRACY!

…but to take an example that’s popular with the religious right, they have argued (all around the world) that the advent of LGBT rights is an affront to their freedom.”

Actually, while you sit up on your high horse of dishonesty, watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhp_DDHe_X0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

Hmm…

Are those people on your “...religious right...” (which you demonstratively know nothing about)?

In your world, it’s about what makes you feel good. In the world of Conservatism, the rights of one do not trump those of another. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to make a ruling on the matter, and the rights of gays do not trump those of those that are not. When you put their wants above others, you’re manufacturing rights, and creating ‘protected classes’ of people, something the US does not need.

It matters not that the religious right in the US greatly outnumbers the LGBT community,”

No, it doesn’t. What does matter is that democracy (that thing you love so much) specializes in the tyranny of the majority, and this is a case in point.

it matters not that everyone is still free (under the Constitution no less) to practice their beliefs – apparently it is unfair that the religious right doesn’t get to force its beliefs upon a minority that doesn’t share them.”

Truth, to you, also doesn’t matter, very clearly. If a person’s religious conscience does not allow them to participate in ceremonies that they disagree with, you, and others say their opinions don’t matter, because DEMOCRACY! They have equal rights, because you ‘allow’ them to practice their religion, but they can’t live by their faiths, because you won’t allow them to, because the rights of the “…more vulnerable groups…” trump their own?

I would be curious to know what alternative form of government Virus-X has in mind.”

A constitutional republic. Question answered.

There’s another way of looking at socialism. It provides equality of opportunity and outcome and bases what a person receives from the system on what that person puts into the system. In other words, it (provided it functions properly) rewards hard work. Virus-X is following the classic trap of mixing up socialism with elements of communism – whilst the two ideas do share some values, they are certainly not one and the same.”

And there’s another way of looking at socialism: it’s a corrupt system in which the chosen few pick winners and losers. America already has equal opportunity. What socialism wants is EQUAL OUTCOME. Meerkat Musings, you lie when you say people “put” things into “the system”. Socialism TAKES from you, because it’s a system of government based solely on taking from one man, to give to another, or, as a man I’m sure you idolized said:

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.”

That’s socialism. And what is the goal of socialism?

The goal of socialism is communism.”

Communism. You know. The thing you accused me of insinuating Trump was, in one of your many lies. Meerkat Musings, you accuse me of “…following the classic trap of mixing up socialism with elements of communism – whilst…” knowing nothing about either, and knowing nothing about American government, democracy, or what a constitutional republic is.

Natural Law should be based on morals and ethics, but whose morals and ethics?”

And, again, falling back on your liberality, you want to reinterpret what Natural Law means, according to your wants and needs. Sorry, socialism isn’t going to get that for you, and Natural Law is clearly defined.

This is the basic recipe for the political philosophy of liberalism—Locke’s philosophy. Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. … The Founding Fathers, in the Declaration of Independence, speak of both naturalrights and natural laws. Locke does likewise.”

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke

Don’t confuse the liberality of Locke with your socialist dogma driven ideology. They’re nothing alike. Again, though: less than 5 seconds of research, and you could’ve found what Natural Law was, or, if you were mentally honest, you could’ve asked what I meant, when I brought it up. However, you’re lazy and mentally dishonest, you and I both know that’s not going to happen.

Whenever I have seen this expression used, it is almost invariably linked to religion. ‘Natural Law’ is the Word of God, for example (which ironically, makes it supernatural and not natural law).”

Asked and answered. You’re heading back into the fields to pick more straw for another strawman.

It is a personal view of mine that if you possess the power to help someone, you help them.”

Another lie. YOU believe the GOVERNMENT should FORCE people to help others, out of a sense of false charity. That’s called SOCIALISM.

If governments possess the means to help their people by providing health care services, they should.”

Not if they do not have the authority to. Let’s go back to your previous statement:

democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

If you’re being critical of the USA, you’re stating, quite clearly, that law, as laid out in the Constitution of the United States, should only be given lip service, until it becomes inconvenient, or when defying it will give you something that you want. The Constitution does not give the federal government in this nation the enumerated power to grant health care, nor interfere in such decisions. Another thing you need to look up is “enumerated powers”. Something else you’re woefully ignorant of, quite obviously.

No one should end up bankrupt or having to choose between medical bills and food.”

True, but it’s not the job of the federal government, nor the enumerated responsibility of that government, to make sure people have the amount of money in their pockets that you think is adequate, nor to make them fiscally responsible with what they do with their money. Nor is it to PROVIDE money. I can tell you’ve never read the Constitution. As a probable foreigner, I’m not advocating that you do, but you’d sound less foolish and child-like when trying to debate constitutional matters.

“‘Natural Law’ (we could go as far as to apply true nature and survival of the fittest) leads only to the powerful dominating the weak, affording no protection or help for society’s most vulnerable.”

Another lie by Meerkat Musings. Must mean another minute has passed. If any philosophy has shown it’s all about dominating of the weak, it’s liberalism, which states, in this country, that people shouldn’t have the right to lethal self defense, and that unborn children aren’t to be considered Human, until it’s convenient to consider them as such. It’s resulted in more megadeaths, than the dropping of a nuclear weapon in a crowded city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States

Communism has also shown itself to be about Darwinism, in it’s death toll. Take a look at the Soviets and the communist Chinese. Constitutional conservatism has never done such a thing, and Natural Law (that thing you don’t know about) also rails against it.

It props up people like Donald Trump. Is that really what we want?”

You clearly don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground, with a stupid argument, like this.

You started this off with quoting the Constitution of the United States. One thing you didn’t mention is the fact that the word “democracy” is never mentioned anywhere in it, and yet, somehow, it supports your ignorant notion that the US is not a constitutional republic. Instead of taking a document you know nothing about out of context, maybe you should heed the words of the men that wrote it.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” –Patrick Henry

“Democracy is the most vile form of government. … democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

A simple democracy is the devil’s own government.” –Benjamin Rush (1745-1813) Founding Father& signer of the Declaration of Independence

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S.

A democracy is a volcano, which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.” – Fisher Ames (1758-1808) Founding Father and framer of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Advertisements

~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on December 17, 2017.

17 Responses to “Democratic Socialism”

  1. […] Cast your minds back to a discussion I had on the subject of guns and Constitutional rights. It appears that the Constitution is to be used selectively – we can apparently ignore it when it comes to support for representative ideals. The same person that I sparred with on that occasion is the person responsible for this article. […]

  2. You’ll have to provide more context for your remark to be relevant.

  3. You may find it worthwhile clicking on the link if you wish for a better understanding of the context.

  4. I don’t see any link to click on, Darthtimon.

  5. Odd, as clicking on the ping back worked for me.

  6. OK, I thought there was a link IN his comments that I wasn’t seeing.

  7. Meerkat Musings, if you’ve got something to say, you can say it here. I’m not going to your page to read something you should’ve posted here, as a comment, in the first place.

  8. ‘Shrug’ the last time I posted a comment here, on our gun discussion, you declined to post my last reply to you. Accordingly, I am not at all certain it would be worth my time posting here directly.

  9. And now comes the part where I denounce you as a liar. I don’t go into the settings, and I don’t change anything from people that post any sort of response to me. If the response posts it did because it did. If it doesn’t, it’s not because I stopped it, or deleted it. If that was the case, then you certainly wouldn’t be getting any questions through, right now, would you? You’re just mad, because I did not give the answers that you want it. No one is forcing you to ask any questions or leave any replies. If you don’t want to, you’re free not to. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I have nothing else to do in my life then to post on the internet. No, that is not true. I have a life, and I’m living up right now outside of my computer. In fact I’m not even at home, because I’m posting on my phone. If you don’t like what you see here, you’re more than free not to read it. If you think that I’m not allowing your remarks to go through, you’re more than free not to post any more.

  10. ‘Shrug’ I twice posted my final comment to you on our gun discussion, twice it went into a moderation queue, and twice it subsequently disappeared. From my own experience with WordPress (my own site is WordPress), the only way this happens is because I alter the settings to place comments in a mod queue (be it set per person or as a general setting). Deleting the comment also requires action on my part. It’s even possible to do this with individual posts, whilst allowing other comments through, elsewhere. Hence, I am quite comfortable with my original conclusion, until proven otherwise.

  11. And I am quite satisfied with my conclusion that you are a liar. Again, like I just said, I am not at home and I am speaking into my phone and having this transcribed. I don’t know why you seem to have this pathological need to have this useless argument about things that only you care about, in light of the fact that I am not on my computer and I am out on the road.

  12. I make these statements for the sake of accuracy. Cast doubt on my honesty and I will demonstrate your own dishonesty. I don’t care whether you are not at home now and I never made any suggestions that you don’t have a life (where you got that idea from I don’t know), however I have every right to comment on whatever I wish, in whatever form I wish to, be that directly to you on your site (assuming you won’t delete the comment), or on my own site.

  13. No, Timon, accuracy is not your aim. Only cheap arguments, predicated on finger-pointing when you don’t get the answer you want to make other people say. Like now, for instance.

  14. I suggest you hold a mirror up to your own remarks and check your own attitude. My issue is not that I will get an answer I want – you and I have *very* different points of view across a range of subjects. My issue lies with your inaccurate representation of our gun discussion. I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding my disappearing comments, however surely you can understand how it looks from my perspective? First, you were ramping up your accusations that I was a liar, then, *twice* my rebuttal entered a moderation queue (where they hadn’t before) and twice got deleted. Had that happened to you, what conclusion would you reach?

  15. I see you have responded to my page – excellent! Now, being in a new job (and more importantly being a father and husband) means I will have to aim to reply over the next week – apologies, it would be sooner, but I am doing six-day weeks.

  16. My reply is now ready. Do with it as you wish.

    A short while ago I had a little discussion with one Virus-X on the topic of gun control, which ended when I twice attempted to post a comment to address some of the points he had raised, and twice saw my comment slip into a moderation queue, then disappear. Having been accused of dishonesty prior to this, I can’t say I was too impressed to then see my reply vanish. I subsequently posted it, and a summary of our gun discussion, right here, then followed this up a little while later with a critical look at his take on democracy. Virus-X has responded and my reply to his rebuttal will end up being posted directly to him, but it will also be posted here, so that an accurate record of the discussion exists – archiving via the Wayback Machine may also take place, for the sake of posterity. My original post regarding the issue of democracy can be found here.

    So people are clear, Virus-X’s response to my article was added onto his original article – as before, I have placed his words in pink. Any quotations he makes from other sources will be in green.

    Update: Internet liberals took it upon themselves to criticize my page, and my disdain for socialism. This is me fisking his long response that he tried to have me get into, on his own page. I told him that if he had anything to say to me, next time, do it on my page, because I have no desire to go to his. I didn’t go to his page to challenge his viewpoint, he came to mine for that. If you do that, you argue here, not elsewhere. Anyhow, here’s the link to his blatherings that he believes I’m obligated to respond to, for context:

    http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/democracy/

    It ought to be noted straight away, for the sake of accuracy, that I do not believe he is obligated to respond to anything. That being said, the reason I posted to my own site rather than his is because of the previous, disappearing post fiasco on his gun post. Maybe there were technical gremlins that day, but for the same comment to twice disappear, after twice ending in a moderation queue where previously things had been ok, gave me cause to wonder if any further comments would get through. At any rate, he would have been immediately aware of my own post, thanks to WordPress setting up a ping whenever someone links to a page.

    Like most apparent liberals, you choose to re-arrange language to suit your mood, at the moment. Nothing in the section you outlined even mentions the word “democracy”, and elections are not peculiar to democracies. Even communist governments have votes (but they’re just not for the people). Socialist governments, such as in the UK, have votes. Voting rights are not something that only exist in democracies. Apparently, you’re unfamiliar with basic history.

    NUMBER:
    1593

    AUTHOR:
    Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

    QUOTATION:
    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    ATTRIBUTION:
    The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review,vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” When McHenry’s notes were included in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, vol. 3, appendix A, p. 85 (1911, reprinted 1934), a footnote stated that the date this anecdote was written is uncertain.

    SUBJECTS:
    Republic

    WORKS:
    Benjamin Franklin Collection

    Hmmm.

    For some reason, Franklin didn’t call the emerging government a “democracy”. Perhaps there is a difference? Again, in your mental dishonesty to twist arguments and gain 5 minutes of Internet fame, you avoid looking into such differences. Here, let me do the 30 seconds of footwork for you:

    http://madisonproject.com/2013/09/we-the-people-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy/

    The weird table won’t go into quote bubbles, so apologies if things look a little askew. At any rate, before moving on, let’s define what a democracy is.The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines democracy as:

    the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of governmentbased on this belief, in which power is either held by electedrepresentatives or directly by the people themselves:

    The government has promised to uphold the principles of democracy.
    The early 1990s saw the spread of democracy in EasternEurope.

    The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has this to say.

    1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections2: a political unit that has a democratic government

    3capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.

    from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy
    —C. M. Roberts4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

    5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges What system does the United States employ? Are there principles of equality, freedom and representation of the people, either directly or indirectly? The answer is a clear yes. Just because the US is not officially referred as a democracy doesn’t mean that democratic principles aren’t at work. The absence of the word from the Constitution is merely a poor attempt to split hairs. To take an example from later on, where Virus-X brings up Venezuela as an example of democracy. Interestingly, both the US and Venezuela are classed not as democracies but as presidential republics – if we are to turn Virus-X’s logic on its head, what does this say about the existing system in the US?

    The answer here is obviously that it says nothing. Virus-X is attempting semantics, and arguments around semantics and minutia simply don’t hold water. Let’s move on.

    It’s funny you should say that:

    “democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins”

    because people that think like you (liberals) say exactly the same thing.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/306350-sudden-liberal-opposition-to-electoral-college-not

    Well.

    Isn’t that a coincidence? However, you can keep getting exercise walking the strawman, pretending elections are only aspects of democracies, and not republics and constitutional republics.

    Quite aside from Virus-X taking my remark out of context, it is worth noting that both sides of the political divide will make the argument, however it’s also worth questioning the value of a system that allows the least popular candidate to win the election. That is in itself an irrelevance, since it does nothing to rebuke my argument that the US is a democracy. By definition, since free elections are held on a regular basis, the US is a democracy. Are democracies perfect? Of course not. Are they better than one-party communist states, theocracies and dictatorships? Absolutely. Nor does a democracy have to be called a democracy in order to be a democracy, so once again, Virus-X is splitting hairs.

    “Cast your minds back to a discussion I had on the subject of guns and Constitutional rights. It appears that the Constitution is to be used selectively – we can apparently ignore it when it comes to support for representative ideals.”
    Yep. And I just posted an article about how leftists are doing that very thing. However, this isn’t about guns, it’s about government types. Maybe you should try keeping on topic. If you want to talk about guns, that can be done in another thread.

    It seems Virus-X either does not understand the point raised or is being deliberately obtuse. We’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t get the point I was making, so I’ll clarify – on this occasion, he, as the staunch right-wing conservative (as other staunch conservatives have done) is quite happy to be selective with the parts of the Constitution he wishes to apply, and selective still further in other ways. Apparently the right to have access to lethal weapons with little in the way of checks and balances is absolutely immutable, yet the idea of representation and elections? He pours scorn on these ideals when he pours scorn on the democratic ideals the Constitution speaks of (and once more, for the record, the absence of the word doesn’t mean the principle doesn’t exist).

    No, actually the gamut, if there is one, is coming from you. Since you’re quite obviously ignorant of the mechanics of government, I’ll educate you: representative government is not endemic only to democracies, but also constitutional republics, like the United States of America. What you’re doing is throwing out yet another strawman, in publishing what is a clear lie, stating:

    “It appears the opening gambit is to accuse anyone who favours a system of representative rule of being an ‘unwashed leftie’, which, quite aside from being quite the insult to anyone who identifies as left wing, rather ignores all the right wing individuals who consider democracy to be a cornerstone of freedom.”

    Allow me to educate Virus-X – a democracy is a system where two or more parties take part in free elections on a regular basis. This is not my definition, but rather the offcial definition of several dictionaries. Meanwhile, several former presidents, including Republican president George W Bush, had a few things to say about democracy:

    Through much of the last century, America’s faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

    I would hope Virus-X is not suggesting he knows better than a former president (and Republican at that). Then we have Ronald Reagan, who once said:

    Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ronald_reagan_387305

    George Bush Sr (another Republican at that) is quoted as saying the following:

    “I’ll never apologize for the United States. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” Bush told about 200 members of his newly formed Coalition of American Nationalities, a group with representatives of ethnic backgrounds from about two dozen countries. Bush attributed his indiscriminate support for the nation to his belief that the United States is “the only hope for freedom and democracy” in the world and that “no other country is strong enough to lead the free world.”

    I would imagine that presidents are required to have a reasonable understanding of the Constitution that they swear to uphold – and I would imagine they do in fact have a greater understanding of it than most.

    There is more, a lot more, but given the aggressive tone that Virus-X directs toward me at almost every turn, plus (more seriously) the demands on my time (most importantly I am a father, also a husband, and I have recently started a new job), I don’t consider it worthwhile to delve into every last detail that Virus-X has seen fit to expand. Barring any dramatic changes to any one of a number of circumstances, I feel it is unlikely I’ll respond directly to him again, though we shall see.

  17. […] Democratic Socialism | Virus-X: REPUBLIC COMMANDO on The Gun Response […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: