Democracy to Socialism to Totalitarianism -- A logical progression

What is "socialist" by your standards? Slightly left of your views? By international standards, the US, and inevitably most of the women there, are right-wingers.

Are the Democrats socialists by any standards except your own?

Actually, if you do your research first and look at a breakdown of voting demographics in the first world, women and greedy retired men aren't the only ones voting for "socialist" parties. Far from it.

So, for example:

Code:

2000/2004 Gender Vote Shares (2-party)

Gore won 55.7% of females

Kerry won 51.5% of females [a 4.15% decline].

 

Socialism itself is a transition towards Communism - a centrally planned system of government, where the means of production, roads, information, etc. are all centrally controlled. A socialist, then, is one who tries to bring this about, or supports it.

He's only speaking of a tendency for women to vote for socialist parties. There will be exceptions, especially when the dominant political party uses a "fear, smear, and queers" campaign (vote for me instead of my cowardly opponent, or your families will be killed by terrorists, and homosexuals will run amok).

I'd attribute this tendency towards the maternal instinct. Women, biologically, are producers of (and primarily, caretakers of) children. They have a huge instinct to protect, to do things for the child's "own good", etc. Apparently, some do not distinguish between situations where they have the right to do this, and where they do not.

 

In the real world, politics with reference to taxation is centered around finding an appropriate balance between government taxation and revenue. Western politicians are hardly aiming to go the same way as the USSR. If socialists are people who believe in some degree of collectivism, then unfortunately it would be entirely undemocratic for you anarcho-capitalists to have your way. The socialists outnumber you massively.

Oh yeah, that 80-90% tendency, sorry .

 

It's centered around trying to get enough funds for whatever it is they do, and trying not to piss off the people too much. The people who try to actually govern are ousted out of office by the people who appeal to the majority of society - usually, the unintelligent majority.

Most of them probably aren't trying to go that way, but unfortunately, that is the way we are going. In our society, you either surrender a chunk of your money to the bureaucrats, or they will send men with guns to arrest you (God help you if you try to defend yourself from these men - they either shoot you, or throw you in the "rape-house"). True freedom is long gone.

I don't want democracy. I want to be left alone, and not have people flapping about my head screeching that I should pony up half my income to help those who cannot manage their own affairs.

Whether they always exhibit this tendency in voting or not, I don't know. However, women make up half the population, and women tend to be very maternal.

 

Like some people have said, I could care less about democracy. I just want to not have my rights disturbed. As a quick example, my dad is the vice president of a company, after all his taxes are said and done (federal/state/town) a full 50% of the money he earned is gone. Stolen from him.

 

Unfortunately for you and your dad, this isn't an opt-out system. You and your father father benefit from having roads, for example. If your dad's company collapsed, then you wouldn't end up starving, since government taxes would support you so you could get back on your feet.

The Enlightenment philosophers at the forefront of the movement which anarcho-capitalists cite as their inspiration would have been opposed to the form of corporate capitalism that exists today.

No, the Laffer curve has special relevance in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve#Context_in_U.S._history

The idea is basically to find a balance in order to maximize government revenue. This means that massive successive tax increases will never be on the cards. It would be political suicide.

Unfortunately taxation isn't an opt-out system. You've got to admit, it's better than feudalism though True freedom is more long gone everywhere else too (except some third world countries).

Yeah, we really need a thread on global warming. Now, terrorism I agree with Sythe on, it's a big scare and it's encouraged by the government. So is some of the war on drugs. But... healthcare, education, transport... fully privitize all of these and you'll end up with a significant underclass of people who can't afford one of the above, and society falls apart.

 

This is where gets dangerous. The government enforces a monopoly on roads, then claims that it's in the right to force us to pay for roads.

What if he doesn't want a mandatory insurance policy? Why can he take risks without interference?

I understand the idea. They want to get as much money as possible without pissing people off.

I'd say that our society has a few similarities to feudalism, actually. We work on land that isn't ours, fork up some to the big men in exchange for services/military protection, and keep the rest.

Taxation is not an opt-out system - but it should be. I don't want to pay taxes, I'll look after my own affairs.

Even if privatization did result in a large proletariat class, why would that be my responsibility? Am I obligated to provide cushy jobs, insurance, and happiness for these people?

 

I think it's somewhat farfetched to argue that public roads are a dangerous step towards totalitarianism.

I can see how you can argue that the government is evil for maintaining a monopoly here - but a completely privatized infrastructure presents a plethora of problems in itself.

In that case, how is our democratic society going to become communist? They don't want to piss people off.

But if you consider a world where everything is privatized, you'll likely be working for some enormous conglomerate on land which isn't your own, and you'll have to pay the big firemen, big security vigilantes, big road attendants a fee for their services/military protection, and keep the rest.

Naturally most exemptions would be impossible with the current system, since you would still benefit from government spending. In a system where taxes were an opt-out system, the wealth gap would expand at an accelerated rate.

The inequality in a society due to the socioeconomic structure that naturally results from anarcho-capitalism is unacceptable in my opinion.

 

Public roads make it very difficult for private roads to exist, since all the good land is already taken for road construction.

What is this plethora of problems?

People are already clamoring for it - or at least for gradual socialism. The movement towards such fascism will come in the guise of helping the poor, or stopping global warming, where new taxes/regulations are imposed, stripping away more of what we own.

In an anarchistic world, change will be rapid, and small business niches will be going in and out of existence extremely rapidly. A giant corporation cannot take advantage of this - but individual-based businesses can, as they are the ones who live in these niches.

All that they need to do is make everything optional, and allow private enterprises to compete with government ones. It won't be long before allowing the market to decide where the roads should go proves vastly more effecient than centrally planning it (just look at the telecommunications situation in Australia, vs. the one in the U.S.).

Not everybody is equal - some people are just more intelligent, more athletic, or better at composing music.

 

I agree, but is that a dangerous step towards totalitarianism?

The regressive nature of the toll fees, road owners being free to overcharge users, complete lack of central planning resulting in construction plans not being in the public interest, and the fact that highways are natural monopolies.

The authoritarian nature of governments doesn't closely correlate to the tax rates people pay in European countries, at any rate. People don't walk under the watchful eye of Big Brother, even in places where green taxes are implemented or welfare is greater.

It's hard to predict the nature of the markets, since anarcho-capitalism has never existed before. There's no denying that currently the US economy is based on public subsidy and private profit, but one thing for sure is that we know this general economic model by which all developed countries function actually works.
I've also made this argument on other threads - monopolies often develop without the involvement of government.

 

Forcing everybody to pay for roads, preventing people from competing with the government? That's pretty totalitarian.

Owners cannot overcharge users - they will be destroyed by competition the instant that happens. Roads have huge volumes of users, and there are thousands of ways to get to one particular destination. The amount of gasoline that it will cost to take an alternative route would be negligible compared to the money saved by avoiding idiotic road companies - thus, it is well within their interests to keep prices low.

For our own good, I suppose. How long before we're all tagged with identification chips that can be traced at any given time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia

That's as close as you're going to get to anarcho-capitalism. See how much better off they are?

 

Indeed, it's a mystery why all the libertarians aren't flocking to it ^_^

I'll make a big post later today, I'm going out now though.

 

It's Africa. Though Somalia is a better place to live than, say, Sudan, it's still a pretty lousy place to live due to the factors that make the rest of Africa a shithole.

 

I'm confused. Government has always taught me that middle-aged women (those most likely to vote) are more likely to be right winged, look at the women to McCain/Palin connection.

I somewhat agree. Technology and the increasing need for efficiency makes the means to control.

 

Sorry Shredder, but you're wrong. In communism, there is no, or little government. Everyone shares everything. Socialism is when things are owned by the state, not everyone's.

" Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]"

 

Somewhat irrelevant. Hypothetical communism yes, implemented communism no.

 

/signed

It's not as clear cut as that, which is why it is taking so long to happen (being that not all women vote, not all women are socialist, etc etc), but it is definitely apparent.