Andrew Rogers

The problem I see here that people get to vote how to redistribute someone else' money to themselves. It is just a theft made look nice.

Watched some of his videos, found certain interesting thinking points, yet the smart-ass "I know better what you need!" attitude, in combination with socialist world view, gives off a strong 'cult leader' stench.

So its better to leave the decisions to the people, rather then corrupt & stupid politicians.

corrupted capitalists = socialists. There is also a problem that with the growing affluence the lag between making the wrong choice and life hammering you on the head gets longer, the new generations becomes detached from the reality. Look at what AOC is proposing?

Leftists usually have no sense of humor.

I don't see a pattern here. I am advocating for less government possibilities for intervention, while Hitler did quite the opposite - maximum governemnt intervention. How do you see that working in real life? Of course, if we would just have a warehouse with 'good & competent' people that we would elect to the key positions... the problem is that we don't have such warehouse. And even good people might become corrupt pretty quickly, once they get to power.

If you feel strongly influenced by them towards the bad side then yes, probably its bad. Otherwise if you can engage with them in activities, while maintaining your 'spiritual side', then no problem. Just be sure you're not mistaking snobism for spirituality.

any better ideas?

Yep, it is very funny to notice how some people are ranting about how they had let go of their ego and not they ARE BETTER then those poor, unenlightened mortals, who are living in a dream. Self-improvement is an individual journey, like going to the gym, for example. Of course, someone who is going for a month would have less results, then someone, who is going for a year. But if the latest starts bragging about how he is better and knows everything, it certainly is a sign that he has some serious problems.

Do not put yourself above them. if you do, good chances are that your are just a snob.

Ok, and if a cooked businessman lobbies a leftist government to buy his "green" electricity at a double price? Is it any better? I see the only solution would be a minimal government, that would not have rights to decide on such issues at all.

Also note that once the anointed get in power, you can not do anything about it, they have full power over you. For example - Novocherkassk, 1962, After the anointed had spend all the money supporting socialist regimes in Africa, they raised the meat prices by 30%, extended working hours and reduced the wage. People revolted. The anointed brought in the army, ordering it to shoot upon the crowd. Commanding officer refused and killed himself. Next KGB snipers started shooting. At least 26 were killed and 87 injured. It is unknown how maybe were arrested and disappeared in concentration camps. Those people were not protesting against the Soviet regime, they just wanted meat, butter and a living wage. So if you want a living wage in capitalism - study and find a better job. If you want a living wage in socialism - you get shot.

Greetings, this is my first post here. I wanted to discuss my political view, hoping that maybe other members might give some tips or notice my biases... Based on Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development i.e. 1 - shortsighted self-interest, modulated by reward and punishment , 2 - culture dictate, without asking why culture dictates one to act in a certain way , 3 - setting one's own principals, acting according to them, questioning authority , 4 - universal love for all I would rank myself at level 3 - right now I am working out my core principals. I understand that core principals can not be scientifically derived, rather then be based on ones sense for fairness and projection of how one would want to be treated onto other people. Also taking into account that there rarely good solutions, rather then just trade-offs and compromises between bad solutions. Main core principal - the best life is a meaningful life. What Aristotle might call Eudaimonia. Not necessary an easy or a happy life, but one that brings you pride for your accomplishments, that forges your character, that makes you a better person, so that when you are on your deathbed, you can say that you lived your life fully, you had your adventures, you had your ups and downs, your happiness and suffering. The following principals are derived from the first one: #2 - In order to live a full & meaningful life, you need to have freedom. You can not live a meaningful life in a golden cage. How much freedom does one need? Well, obviously such amount that he/she can have a most meaningful life possible. For example, if you live in total freedom, i.e. in the middle of a forest and your tribe is killed by a neighboring tribe, that sucks. If you live in a society where all your needs are taken care of and you can lay on the couch, eat cheesecakes, watch netflix all day and rant about how oppressed you are - that will also lead to a miserable life. As Goggins had put it - greatness lays on the other end of suffering. If you want to have a great body, you have to suffer in the gym. If you want to be a great piano player, you have to suffer practicing, etc. Of course, one can have too much suffering and it will just crush him. On the other hand, if you completely remove ones suffering, he will not be able to accomplish anything great. So you want to have just the right amount of suffering imposed on yourself and other people. The above might lead us to ideas of classical liberalism - an individual is free to live his/her life as he wants, as long as he does not harm other people. Government is a collective extension of people's rights, therefor it can not do what an individual is prohibited from doing. For example, if two people conspire to steal a third person's belongings - it is theft. If those two people vote for the government to act as a middle-man in stealing someone's property and 'redistributing' it to them - it is still a theft. On the other hand, to protect the freedom of people from not being harmed, the government does need some resources, i.e. police, military, etc. , so some amount of taxation is necessary, yet it has to be considered as evil. A necessary evil, but still evil. Therefor it has to be kept to the very minimum, people should know exactly how much the are paying in taxes ( i.e. no hidden taxes ) and should have a vote on how this money is spend. Of course, they can not vote on just giving other people's money to them, rather on how the money they give to the government should be spent for the benefit of all, i.e. do we build a school or a bridge. I am afraid I might have a bias here - since I see myself as a free person, who is able to take care of himself, I automatically project it onto other people... #3 - Stay humble! One has to understand, that he is unable to fix the whole world, that he is unable to eliminate everybody's suffering, especially by doing it against their will. I see any such attempts as a top level arrogance, devilry, egoism and plain historical ignorance. Socialists murdered and enslaved millions of people for their utopian ideas countless times during the last century and always failed miserably. If someone says "no, no, they got it all wrong, they were stupid! I had some shrooms and now I am the anointed one, I will get it right!" - it is just ninja level devilry. So one have to make sure the proposed system would work in real world, not just ones fantasies. The system has to be robust, because in real world, everything that can go wrong, will go wrong. A socialist might say - we would put good people in the right places and they will rule benevolently over everybody, taking from the rich and giving to the poor! But that's a fantasy. When the rubber hits the road, what if the good people would become corrupt, get in cahoots with oligarchs and 'redistribute' the money of the poor people to themselves and their buddies? As it happened in Russia, Venezuela, etc. ? What if the right people, when taxed at 90%, would just pack their bags and move to Cypress or something? A globalist might think - let's install a world-government, that would run everything, so there would be no conflicts. In reality representative democracy already works pretty poorly, but when the 'world-government' would consist of people who are unaccountable for their actions and distant from the actual people... its a recipe for disaster. Imagine some anointed, arrogant politician in Brussels trying to regulate what kind a potatoes an English farmer should grow? Brits would tell him to go fuck himself and would vote to leave the EU. So representative democracy kinda works, as long as the rulers can see the problem of the ruled and the ruled and communicate their problems with the rulers. If this communication is broken, if the anointed ruling class starts ignoring the people and pushing their own agenda, usually people revolt and overthrow them. Therefor, in my opinion, the best government should be a blend of - Republic, i.e. the core idea that "people are free to live as they please, as long as they don't hurt anybody else" is above all and can not be changed my majority of votes or whatever. One person is not entitled to another person's property. Government should inform everybody how much taxes they are paying and how this money is spend. Government's duty is to protect people's freedom, not to run their lives. Government can use force only to protect one person from another, trying to harm him, rather then to instill its utopian vision. - Representative democracy, i.e. people would elect their representatives to run day to day issues. - Direct democracy, i.e. people would vote on key issues, mainly how their tax money is spend, keeping the politicians in check. Please let me know what you think?

No, the soviet union was "Союз Советских Социалистических Республика" - a union of soviet socialistic republics. It was not communism, i.e. communism was seen as a next stage of socialism, which was always promised, but never achieved. Anybody recalls late Brezhnev promising communism by 1980? The problem with reading books is that they tell you whatever the author wants to tell you. And, often, what works good on paper, fails miserably in real life. So instead of reading books, you might want to look at how it played out in reality. There you go a few pictures, 1970s 1980s

I was born in the soviet union, my parents lived there. I fluently speak Russian and know a lot of how it worked. The classical definition of socialism is government ownership of mean of production. So there can be no private factories, all belongs to the government and is ran by a small group of 'anointed' people, who believe to know what is the best for everybody else. While such system attempts to provide some level of stability, it takes away most of the people freedoms. So you kinda get a free healthcare, but its quality is appalling and you can not opt out of it. You get free schooling, but, same problem, appalling quality and no way out. So basically a major power imbalance - the few anointed ones, who run the state, can do whatever they please, while ordinary people are pressed into a grim existence and do not have a say about almost anything. How about you, have you lived in the soviet union or studied its culture?

ok, well, I saw your initial post. I am not saying that free market libertarianism is perfect, but it seems to be doing a much better job, then socialism.

Well, same argument could work the other way around - why you do not value freedom? As I see it, countries, civilizations, etc are in general a social construct. At Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up - and decide we will have a country based on such and such rules. This rules can not be proven, they are based on what the founders think would be the best. Why does one have to assume that your way of compassion ( i.e. willingness to play god with other people's money ) is not just a selfish whim to take other's stuff? Even if it is true compassion, why do you think that a malevolent person will not stab you in the back and take over? Please do so. I did not strawmen you intentionally, please correct what I got wrong.

In my understanding compassion is when you see someone in need, you take out your wallet and help him as you see fit. This is true compassion. Yes when to help someone, you take money of out someone else wallet - that is theft, that is devilry. You do it to show off to your ego how 'good and compassion' you are. Well, I guess it boils down to what core principals we have. I value freedom over equality, you value equality over freedom. For me the idea itself that one person can call other stupid or misinformed, take away their freedom, their resources and attempt to squeeze real people into his vision of a utopian society, seems appalling and such person as a top level arrogant. This was tried multiple times in the last century, it always ended in disaster. Why do you think you could do better? 1. Because I value freedom. I would prefer live in a society where I am free to strive and fail, rather then where I am made equal to everybody else based on a vision of some self-anointed dictator. 2. Because I believe that such societies are unsustainable, it always ends with equal misery for everybody, as it was in the Soviet Union or is now in Venezuela. And why do you believe that a society, where equality is valued over freedom can even be sustainable? How do you see this equality work in practice? Has it ever been achieved and sustained for a prolonged period of time?

I don't think that the color-representation scheme is accurate of reality. Probably the model presented by John Glubb in his book "The Fate of Empires" might be more accurate. Stage 1 - the age of outburst - brave men with guns show up. Stage 2 - the age of conquest - they conquer and take control over certain territory. Stage 3 - the age of commerce - they start producing goods and trading with each other. Stage 4 - the age of affluence - their descendants become rich, they start building monuments, museums, etc. Stage 5 - the age of intellect - manly virtues are replaced with more of an intellectual achievements. Stage 6 - the age of decadence - previous generations have accumulated so much wealth, that the next generation does not feel the necessity to strive forwards. It feels lots, nihilistic, decadent and destructive. Stage 7 - the age of decline and collapse - once the impotent generation takes over, it is unable to maintain the level of affluence achieved before and the empire either collapsed on itself or it taken over by another society, which is at the age of conquest. Take Sweden for example, at one point their vikings were looting neighboring countries, but now they have become so impotent, that a more aggressive civilization is taking over and they cannot even resist. So once a country reaches level Yellow, according to Leo's classification - it does not go to turquoise and live in an eternal bliss, rather is just dies and it taken over by people, who are at stage red.