Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 12 of 36
Quote:The answer was embedded in your question BY DEFINITION. IF the majority is in control of every aspect of your life... no other answer is possible! That's why I said it was a pretty big IF. But I am clearly not proposing that the majority be in control of every aspect of your life! As such, your question was a simply a rhetorical tool to force an answer.
Alrighty then. That pretty much takes care of any lingering doubts I may have had. Thanks for your honesty.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer was embedded in your question BY DEFINITION. IF the majority is in control of every aspect of your life... no other answer is possible! But that's why I said it was a pretty big "if"!
Well, then that brings us back to the thread title. What mechanism in socialism, any brand you might be thinking of, prevents this from happening? I'll the rephrase the question you just answered: Under socialism, what limits the power of the majority over the minority?
You answered this before by beginning a list of specific rights that would be protected, but that brings no clarity because, presumably, that very list of rights is at the mercy of majority rule. Constitutionally limited government does provide that clarity because it takes the inverse approach and compiles a concise list of what the government can do (ie the rights you don't have rather than those you do).
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We have a Constitution which has been violated by the government every which way for the last eight years, sporadically before then, and majorly under Nixon and Lincoln. I'm not sure a simple "goddamn piece of paper" is going to protect anyone. That's why I keep harping on HOW the government is formed and HOW it operates. You need rights but as importantly you need a system which will keep the government under control. So you need to look at when rights were violated and how to prevent it in the future. (and IMHO more of the same will just lead to more of the same.)
Quote:I'm assuming that we're taking about democratic... whateverism. (I'm not actually proposing socialism.) As I started saying, I think there need to be structural changes.
What mechanism in socialism, any brand you might be thinking of, prevents this from happening? I'll the rephrase the question you just answered: Under socialism, what limits the power of the majority over the minority?
So, first of all, you need a constitution which states your rights... and very clearly states that NO ENTITY can violate those fundamental rights... whether that entity is the Federal government, the state, the city, a business... or even your very own family
Secondly I think we should eliminate the office of the President. Most of the abuses seem to have come from the Executive Branch.
Thirdly, I think we need a way of kicking power downwards... solving problems at the lowest possible level. But I don't think limiting central power is either wise or sufficient. New situations will arise where only a centralized power can act effectively, but there needs to be a constant push in the other direction. I haven't put much thought into how to do that, but I suspect in a couple of day I will propose a mechanism that is flexible and effective. In fact... what about if the more central authority only comes into play on appeal from a lower entity? (For example, the State would adjudicate a property-tax conflict between counties?
Fourth, maybe one should be able to opt-out of certain taxes and government services. You say you have imagination Sarge? Maybe you should put it to work!
And, speaking of work... it's my day off, but my family needs me. ----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cool... some interesting ideas there.
I've been blowing way to much time on this thread the last few days and I really need to get some work done, so I'm going tear myself away for a bit. But I'd like to continue, if at a slower pace.
Anyway, thanks for addressing my points.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm, it really DOES sound like both of you are looking at the Catalonian model from opposite ends.
The inherent problem, other than creating it, however, is defending it, and you're not gonna do that without violence, and a lot of it, unfortunately.
Another thing I am interested in, but having difficulty finding any information on, is how the Spain of the time produced so many folk who's inherent nature trended towards that degree of self-reliance and management, enough to make something like that WORK in the first place.
One thing our social, economic, educational and other systems have been all too damned good at, is weeding out folk who trend that way, sure, some slip through the cracks here and there - but most of them wind up in the hellcamps, which is one reason I felt they needed to be destroyed, since as long as we were actively eliminating those among us who had the potential to not only thrive without their "masters" but who would eventually desire that exact result, this concept wasn't gonna *go* anywhere, you see ?
I've spent a good chunk of my life figuring out what makes people like that, and it's been my conclusion (and a shout-out to HKCav here) that the mental health of those folk is in some way more stable and superior to average, as they see empathy and cooperation as strength, not weakness - and yet, despite them being of superior mental health in my perception, our society perceives them, specifically in the factor of having less respect for "authority" which has not proven it's value, as suffering from mental illness!
And as such, also sees them as needing "treatment" in much the fashion of soviet style re-education, which leads down the road to the camps, a model which if unchecked, was gonna lead to use against adults soon enough, still might, the potential is there, anyhows.
But really, what's it say about modern psychiatry when self reliance, self control, empathy and cooperation to a degree where external control is no longer desired or required - is considered a mental illness requiring treatment ?
Anyhows, if you want such models to work, first you have to have people capable of survival within them, willing to play by those rules, and who desire to do so - but that flower is never gonna bloom so long as we smash it flat at the slightest sign of it sprouting, you understand ?
Fixing THAT problem has been the work of an entire lifetime, for me.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Government should force the powerful to give up that power.
And who gets to decide who has power and who has to give it up? You? How level should the government force things to be? Should everyone, regardless of ability or drive, have the same thing? Didn't Kurt Vonnegut write a story about such a utopia?
Quote:
This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well.
Was he forced to do so by the government? Is he one of those you consider powerful?
If folk can get access to media to distribute their ideas using outlets and technology freely available, such as FFF.com and a free computer terminal at a library, why bring government force into it at all?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And both- the slave-like conditions working for "the man" AND the slave-like conditions working for yourself- are CREATED BY capitalism.
Or they can be created by socialism or communism. Since in most socialist or communist systems both the economic and governmental systems are socialist or communist, you got a better chance of government being the one enforcing the slave-like conditions there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It appears that we are. BTW... onew of Rue's favorite books is The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin. Strange to say but... it's a book about an anarchist society. I suspect there is more anarchist in us than we thought.
Hmm, it really DOES sound like both of you are looking at the Catalonian model from opposite ends.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Since that's not what I said, I'm gonna ignore that question and suggest that you re-read my posts.
And who gets to decide who has power and who has to give it up? You? How level should the government force things to be? Should everyone, regardless of ability or drive, have the same thing? Didn't Kurt Vonnegut write a story about such a utopia?
Quote:No, but he was almost forced out of it a few years ago. You may recall the telecoms at one point thinking they were going to charge some websites more? It was only a big hue-and-cry.... the kind you seem to be so worried about.... that stopped it.
This is exactly what Haken has done. It seems to work pretty well.-signy
Was he forced to do so by the government? Is he one of those you consider powerful? If folk can get access to media to distribute their ideas using outlets and technology freely available...
Quote:The library IS government. Or haven't you noticed?
such as FFF.com and a free computer terminal at a library, why bring government force into it at all?-geezer
Quote:Actually, there was a big DROP in living standards when socialist nations converted to capitalism. Quite frankly, capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful. But since I'm a big fan of democracy I don't see that as an issue.
And both- the slave-like conditions working for "the man" AND the slave-like conditions working for yourself- are CREATED BY capitalism. -signy
Or they can be created by socialism or communism. Since in most socialist or communist systems both the economic and governmental systems are socialist or communist, you got a better chance of government being the one enforcing the slave-like conditions there.-Geezer
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Since that's not what I said...
You said "Government should force the powerful to give up that power." I'd think questioning who decides the definition of 'powerful' in that scenario is valid.
Quote:
No, but he was almost forced out of it a few years ago. You may recall the telecoms at one point thinking they were going to charge some websites more? It was only a big hue-and-cry.... the kind you seem to be so worried about.... that stopped it.
So it was public opinion, not government, that stopped these changes. Why would I be worried about that?
Quote:
Actually, there was a big DROP in living standards when socialist nations converted to capitalism.
So it's better to be a well-fed slave? Actually, if you think Russia is capitalism, I believe you're mistaken. I'd suggest it's more in line with Corporatism, with government/business centers of power, such as Gazprom, which the government uses as a political weapon.
Quote:
Quite frankly, capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful. But since I'm a big fan of democracy I don't see that as an issue.
Signym, even the welfare state systems you like so much, such as Sweden, are basically capitalist economies with redistribution of wealth by taxes and governmnet social programs. the money to provide those social programs comes from the capitalist economic engine.
As for 'capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful', this could apply to pretty any system. In the Soviet Union, the system worked best for the politically powerful. In current Russia, the politically powerful can still fix elections and kill with impunity. The same for North Korea currently. No capitalism needed if you got the guns.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME