Utilitarianism, Social Darwinism and Communism - What is it good for?

[David Octavius]

Is there anyone who actually believes in these systems and can prove it out beyond theory?

Utilitarianism as I understand it, is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This goes against the basic tenets of liberty and can easily oppress the rights of the minorities. Pure democracies can be seen an example, thus the reason why I believe there must be checks on it.

Social Darwinism, depending on who believes in it, is a racist, sexist or elitist view that suggests survival of the fittest based on biological conditions or wealth. In contemporary times, pure laissez-faire capitalists are apt to believe this. They think only the strongest can survive and those who are left behind are unfit. Besides the obvious that is too violates liberty, it should be clear that not all who possess wealth are strong or smart, there are so many other factors involved that this theory is totally discredited.

Communism is just a pie in the sky dream that will never happen. I can understand what it is trying to achieve, but for the first place it stifles our liberty to prosper and be free of control and the second place the system cannot work in areas of large populations, corruption is going to be the result.

There is a reason why the people always fight against these systems and its theme of this post, liberty is being oppressed. As long as it is, there is no stability in government or society; it only breeds discontent that will destroy the nation from within. This is why liberty must be the central idea of any just society (not pleasure as with Utilitarians, or economics with social darwinist and communists) in order to have security and tranquility.

[Kytro]

I believe the issue is rooted in the fundamental conflict of desire in human social groups.

Each system has strengths and weaknesses. As long as people are ruled by emotion, no system will be perfect.

I'm not suggesting that emotion isn't healthy, it is - but it should be an experience not something that takes control of you.

Due to the ruling nature of emotion, manipulative people gain power and set agendas based on this emotive reactionism.

What is the solution? I am not sure, but I do believe a good first step would be to limit the power of those currently making decisions. Agendas should be set based on real information and not vetoed based on popular opinion. While people need to be able to make decision, they need to do so from un informed, and unbiased position

[MKULTRA]

I think that any society, whatever label you give it, must have a set of guiding rules that limit our power over one another, especially government's power over its citizens.

While there may be many good and noble ideas in the systems you listed, and everyone has their own views of what exactly "communism" is or "capitalism" is, etc. I have to be extremely suspicious of any political system that seeks to bring about social equality by stripping citizens of their property rights.

Any system, regardless of what you want to call it, has to have at least some basic property rights. Why? Your body is the first piece of property that you will ever own. Without basic property rights there are no individual rights.

That I think, is my biggest issue with Communism, which was founded by Horace Greeley and Karl Marx. I have read Marx's earlier book "A World Without Jews" and it is a total 180 from what he wrote in the Manifesto, what was mostly borrowed works .

*Please do not take that as an anti-semitic remark. That is a book Marx actually wrote.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Is there anyone who actually believes in these systems and can prove it out beyond theory?

To answer this question, no. If these systems can be proven to work, it would have been done so by now.

Unless of course one argues that each attempt was not a true attempt of each system, but I truly believe each government that attempted such, had the true form of each system in mind.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

To answer this question, no. If these systems can be proven to work, it would have been done so by now.

Unless of course one argues that each attempt was not a true attempt of each system, but I truly believe each government that attempted such, had the true form of each system in mind.

We are using Utilitarianism in the war on terror and I think it will harm us, our security as the expense of other people and of our rights will only make us less secure in the long term

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Social Darwinism, depending on who believes in it, is a racist, sexist or elitist view that suggests survival of the fittest based on biological conditions or wealth. In contemporary times, pure laissez-faire capitalists are apt to believe this. They think only the strongest can survive and those who are left behind are unfit. Besides the obvious that is too violates liberty,

How does this violate anyone's liberties?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

We are using Utilitarianism in the war on terror and I think it will harm us, our security as the expense of other people and of our rights will only make us less secure in the long term

Are we really though? Is this a permanent fixture, or are there temporary uses of such a system? Is it succeeding or failing?

[RMNIXON]

Darwinism is Darwinism. Smart ambitious talented poor people will have a chance to rock the world. They may get crushed but hey have a shot. Dumb rich people will only get along on their families position for a short time. They will spend the money and still have stupid kids. Evolution is a long scale view. Thinking you are better because chance of birth put you on top at the moment is the short view. In biology it means little. Paris Hilton has no more effect on the gene pool than the stupid poor people who have kids.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

There is a reason why the people always fight against these systems and its theme of this post, liberty is being oppressed. As long as it is, there is no stability in government or society; it only breeds discontent that will destroy the nation from within. This is why liberty must be the central idea of any just society (not pleasure as with Utilitarians, or economics with social darwinist and communists) in order to have security and tranquility.

Liberty is the strength of it. In the long term it will win out. We could have responded to 9/11 by driving Muslims out of the country and declairing war on a race and religion. That is what some pretend we have done because it fits their twisted world view. But unlike the Nazi's we didn't do that, not even close. Does it make us more vulnerable to infiltrated terror? Yes. That is the price of liberty. It means doing the right thing, not just protecting the most people. Dictators are afraid of personal liberties and want as much social control as possible. They don't like our example in the world and it is a motivator. Take a look at Orwell's 1984. What held that world together were three states that were just about the same and personal liberty had nothing to do with any of it!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

How does this violate anyone's liberties?

.

[Diamond Cross]

Dots violate people's liberties?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Dots violate people's liberties?

I was quoting myself. I bumped the thread because I demand answers!