Citizens Petition White House

[ajspiano]

FYI, I'm not going to go dig through a bunch of posts, and find references for them to "prove" it.

All I mean is that from what I've SEEN you seem to tend to lean towards them. I don't feel the need to dig up information just to say that.

You don't need to. - Of course, failing to do so makes you look silly..   finding definitions takes a whole 10 seconds if that, and finding things I've said doesn't take long either (because there's a search function on the forum, and in your browser).

If you're going to insinuate that a person's view is a certain way.. you should back it up, particularly if your insinuation is potentially insulting - as political agendas can be since they get at a persons core values.

And, this isn't entirely about you're 'attack' (if it can be called that) on mine and j_menz's values..  there's also the fact that multiple people are expressing concern that you have a fundemental lack of understanding regarding the words you are throwing around. You need to defend your credibility, not prove that I am or am not a certain thing..

..of course, you don't actually need to do that, but again, failing to do so will make you look silly.

I don't expect what I believe to apply everywhere and to everybody,

Actually, in a past thread you expressed that you believe that your opinion on a topic was "right" and that other opinions on the matter were unequivocally "wrong" - AND, that your value should apply to all people, in fact you compared the failure of your nation to adhere to your belief as being worse than genocide.

[j_menz]

Your VIEW on politics seems to be Communist/Socialist.

Clearly you have a rather unique definition of these (and appear to be unable to distinguish them). Communism and Socialism are in fact reasonably well defined systems of belief (though somewhat umbrella terms in both cases). They are not generic terms of abuse, which appears to be the sense in which you are using them. Perhaps you could point to one thing I have said that would put me in either camp.

And America isn't actually a Democracy. We're just a Republic that's shifted more towards Democracy.

Your founding fathers might be a little surprised at your assessment.  Do you actually understand what a Republic is? What Democracy entails or are these just terms you throw around?

[iansinclair]

Clearly you have a rather unique definition of these (and appear to be unable to distinguish them). Communism and Socialism are in fact reasonably well defined systems of belief (though somewhat umbrella terms in both cases). They are not generic terms of abuse, which appears to be the sense in which you are using them. Perhaps you could point to one thing I have said that would put me in either camp.

Your founding fathers might be a little surprised at your assessment.  Do you actually understand what a Republic is? What Democracy entails or are these just terms you throw around?

Oh how I dislike politics... but J_menz' comments quoted above seem to be pretty darn accurate to me.

I might add one or two points, though -- certainly not altering, just adding.  The first is that communism and socialism are both, like capitalism, primarily belief systems relating to economic behaviour, and somewhat secondarily to social behaviour (communism a bit more towards social behaviour).  Communism, of the small 'c' sort, is an utopian outlook; unfortunately, like most utopian outlooks, history has a long list of groups who tried it and found that, human nature being what it is, it doesn't work.  Both it and socialism, in my view, require a degree of altruistic behaviour on the part of public which appears to be a bit optimistic, again given human nature as a constant.  Socialism, however, has been found to be a valid approach albeit somewhat modified, in some homogeneous cultures, such as Sweden.

The other point I would like to add here is that the various "isms" above, being primarily economic theories, are compatible with many forms of government; democracy and a republic among them, but also any other form.  This, I would point out, is not true of large 'C' communism, which is as much a political system as an economic one, entailing absolute control by and allegiance to a monolithic State.

As an aside, anyone who seriously tries to understand all this stuff would be well advised to study the original literature and theory rather deeply -- and retain a very healthy skepticism about human nature.  There are, relating to the topic at hand, some very critical differences between a democratic system and a republican system (having NO reference whatsoever to political parties!!!!!).  The United States is a republic.  Some small political entities in the United States, notably some small towns in New England, are democracies.

Hang in there, j_...

[outin]

I might add one or two points, though -- certainly not altering, just adding.  The first is that communism and socialism are both, like capitalism, primarily belief systems relating to economic behaviour, and somewhat secondarily to social behaviour (communism a bit more towards social behaviour).  Communism, of the small 'c' sort, is an utopian outlook; unfortunately, like most utopian outlooks, history has a long list of groups who tried it and found that, human nature being what it is, it doesn't work.  Both it and socialism, in my view, require a degree of altruistic behaviour on the part of public which appears to be a bit optimistic, again given human nature as a constant.  Socialism, however, has been found to be a valid approach albeit somewhat modified, in some homogeneous cultures, such as Sweden.

Nice to see that someone actually knows what they are talking about

What I want to add to this is that the failures of different utopic trials may or may not be due to human nature. The theory about human nature as something constant is something that can not be empirically tested in larger scale since humans very soon after birth become products of their social environment. Recent research does imply that it is not a constant, but humans differ in this aspect already from birth (for example suggesting that one does not become a sociopath simply because of nurture). Since the pre-existing economic and social conditions, as well as global politics, will seriously affect any attempt to change social and economical structures, it's not accurate to blaim just human nature for the possible failure.

BTW. The Scandinavians don't consider their system modified sosialism, it's a rather peculiar mixed economy system with characteristics from both socialism and capitalism and constantly shifting on the scale between these two ideals depending on the political climate.

And you are right, I think it's time to concentrate on the piano again, that's something where we can actually make a change