h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What majority are you talking about, GTB? We don't have majorities in the US anymore.

touché

Name: R. Daneel Olivaw (U201118)

Chair title: Ambassador from Sorrillia

Or, if we do, its not politically correct to admit it.

Hi GtB .

Thank you for so kindly electing me to my Chair. I shall roast a turnip in your honour!

I did not realise, or did not notice that I am the second Defender of the Faithless. Perchance you should demote that title for me to Deputy Defender?

As for Weirdo Tax Credits, I am, I believe, tax deductible and attract an Invalid Care Allowance to any august body that claims my body.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

Wow,

That gadget works well GTB

Hi RDO and welcome to the FFFF.

Hi Math

I hadn't noticed your arrival, . Welcome to this merry band.

P-c:

GTB:

Piffle! Minorities aren't represented (in Western democracies), they are (at best) protected. Only those groups who have sufficient votes to elect a representative get represented.

GTB:

Sophistry and nonsense. The majority is *most* of society, by definition.

It seems the only contentious part of this is whether there is any link at all between democracy - the rule of the people - and socialism. I think there is, but I accept, as you say: "Democracy is compatible with socialism ... but it does not imply it."

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Returning to the original question ....

The western world is in one way or another run by democracies, irrespective of any underlying cultural differences.

What is apparent though is that most of the west, which has grown out of feudal systems (i.e. Europe), where the leader was duty bound to care for their subjects (nobility as a duty, not a privilege), is founded on a principle of the "needs of the many out weighing the needs of the one" (unless that interfered with what a particular leader wanted).

Much legislation has been enacted to redress this particular imbalance, including such things as the European Charter of Human Rights, etc. This relaxation of control is carried out reluctantly by governments, but it is happening. Still it remains true that in Europe at least, there is a paternalistic relationship between government and citizens.

The USA, however, was founded in a spirit of rebellion against that paternalistic relationship and set out in their original Declaration of Independence ...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

... a tone that was carried through to their constitution. I believe that the US is thus founded on a principle of "the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many".

Subsequently there has been legislation to redress this similar inbalance. However it was and is fought against by the citizenry.

It seems to me at least that neither model was originally ideal and that there must be some balance established between the needs of the individual and the needs of society.

Agreed. Thanks for that perspective, Madent, which has clarified things for me, if no-one else.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>"Unmoderated socialism places the needs of society as a whole above those of the individual. That is a reasonable - if simple - definition of socialism, don't you think?" (P-c, #2358)


Well, no... 'Socialism' is almost as slippery and difficult to define as 'anarchism'. Some socialists have authoritarian tendencies, while others lean towards libertarianism. The former group is closer to the model you outlined, P-c, where the individual's interests are secondary to those of centralised government. That view of socialism, to my mind, is actually rather close to fascism, a system where the individual has no rights at all and is a mere ant in the service of the all-powerful State.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by 'unmoderated' (or 'pure', as you say elsewhere) socialism. I doubt if there really is such a thing, even in theory. But my own guess is that the anti-authoritarian impulse is far stronger in the average socialist, than the desire for centralising control. The latter is seen as a necessary evil - a means to an end - by *some* and by no means all... Socialism, first and foremost, is a doctrine of liberation - one that, in my opinion at least, doesn't really hold up too well in practice. But any doctrine that has "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," as a central tenet, surely has to be regarded as one that has the needs and rights of individuals at its heart.


Lear, not actually a socialist at all, by the way

P-c: "Only those groups who have sufficient votes to elect a representative get represented." - Not entirely correct. Only those groups who have sufficient votes to *swing* an election get represented. That's why the major parties in the US pay particular attention to minorities who consistently back them... for example, the Democrats cater to African-Americans, and the Republicans cater to the Wreligious Wrong. Third parties who have gained enough power to change the overall outcomes of elections have usually had the major parties come storming to adopt their ideas.

Last presidential election, Al Whore was literally begging people not to vote Green, because he knew that those who would choose Nader would have chosen him in a two-horse race. Enough people voted Green anyway that Gush ended up with the win. Next election, the Democrats are going to have to work hard to incorporate enough Green philosophy to take their votes.

Madent: "I believe that the US is thus founded on a principle of "the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many." - I don't believe this is true at all. I think it's more of a principle of "the needs of the one ARE the needs of the many." You must protect the rights of the few who will abuse those rights, else you deny them to the majority who will not.

Doublethink! It is in the nature of (any) society that it must constrain its members individually in order to best serve its members colectively.

From the point of view of an individual, who is also a member of society, there is a compromise to be drawn between what she wants for herself and what she wants from society.

To say that the needs of the one ARE the needs of the many is to deny this compromise, and the need for it.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You're confusing "wants" with "needs."

Blatherskite: "P-c: "Only those groups who have sufficient votes to elect a representative get represented." - Not entirely correct. Only those groups who have sufficient votes to *swing* an election get represented."

Both views are simplifications, models of the actual process, and both have a kernel of truth. In the end, it's difficult to say much more than "those who agree with those who actually got elected get represented", which says almost nothing at all. I personally find it more helpful to look not at particular groups but at the forces at work which shape election results, of which party policy is only one part (and not necessarily the most important part). Other important forces are inertia, people don't tend to change their vote, spending power, surely it's not a coincidence that Bloomberg got elected mayor in New York and spent about $9 per person on his election campaign?, media support, etc.

"those who agree with those who actually got elected get represented" - But those who get elected shape their positions to incorporate the concerns and opinions of the votes they would hope to win.

You'll get no argument from me on your points regarding the influence of inertia, indifference, money, and the media.

OK: From the point of view of an individual, who is also a member of society, there is a compromise to be drawn between what she needs for herself and what she needs from society.



Nor me. I think (hope?) we're all taking for granted large areas of agreement?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

And I'll say it again until it becomes maddening with repetition and you start hearing it in your nightmares ... the needs of the one are the same as the needs of the many.

I'll happily entertain any examples you wish to provide to invalidate my position.