I like the idea of a strict homogeneous society with economic socialism and traditionalist lifestyles. Ideally I don’t see the western world getting better and the only option should be to delay wealth and use state industry to militarize citizens to liberate themselves from degeneracy/decadence, and to forcefully bring back and educate traditional values like strong families, loving your people and country, respecting neighbors and people in general, strong faith in God if needed to maintain objective morality, prevent parasitical elements in society such as those that take too much or those that harvest too much wealth, to help and allow people to bring themselves out of economic slavery and poverty, and ideally set in motion a pure society capable of sustaining itself using Socialism and Traditionalism as a means to an end. That’s just me, I think it would work out and be executed perfectly given that people start to believe in themselves and the idea to be created out of sheer willpower. Much like how National Socialists in Germany helped bring the country out of depression, or how the American people brought themselves out of depression through war. Even in Russia, Stalin at least helped with building a modern society there, it may not be quality but it was enough quantity to start it off. The willpower and belief in people to bring themselves a better society out of hard times can work, but only if everyone is capable of going through it.
I oppose social welfare and financial equality, because the universe is fundamentally not fair. If you produce actual value to society, people will pay you for it, and both sides benefit. There is no right to healthcare, or firefighting services, or policing, because nobody is obligated to take care of your ass. If you truly care about people, then you will put your money where your mouth is, and not force other people to take care of it. I am pro-discrimination because it’s the other side of the coin of the freedom to associate with whomever you like. I am pro-child labor and pro-wage slavery because these things are inevitable in desperate economies before the economy has accumulated wealth and increased productivity, and banning it would therefore worsen the problems. I am anti-democracy because popular opinion has no bearing on truth and reason. I am anti-government because i am anti-monopoly. I am anti-collectivism because i do not tolerate the majority sacrificing my liberties because they had a vote and decided the collectives irrational entitlements comes first. People cling onto government because it feels nicer living a lie of having rights to irrational things, and forcing people at the point of a gun to make that lie happen, with horrible results. And since they’ve never experienced anything different, they don’t believe big issues can be solved outside government, even though the market is fundamentally something that meets demand. I don’t have any ideal plan for society, because i can’t predict what the most efficient solutions would be if government was de-monopolized. But it’s certainly not what we have.
@NativeInterface if you do not allow some diversity in the upper class, you end up eventually dwindling the upper class to one to ten families due to resource ownership competition, marrying/merging of families and the fact that in a for-profit aristocracy the elite top class only shrinks because if you make it impossible for middle class to join the aristocracy there is never any new blood added to it.
Aside from the problem of incest and running out of couples to pair off this presents the larger issue of genetic stagnation which amplifies things such as severe allergies and susceptibility to diseases and disorders both physically and mentally.
Also @NativeInterface you are anti-monopoly but pro-aristocracy??? How is that not a direct contradiction?
By upper class I assume you mean people who have accumulated wealth because the people have been willing to voluntarily hand them that wealth through trade, but how do you specifically “allow some diversity in the upper class” if they for whatever reason aren’t interested in diversity? Aristocracy as far as I can tell is “a form of government” so I am anti-aristocracy as well.
@NativeInterface aristocracy/aristocrat means nobleman by birth (inherited wealth class: its not a form of government it just means those born into wealth/ruling bloodline)
@NativeInterface if you oppose social welfare and financial equality that means you are in-favor of an aristocratic system with or without the ability to earn your way into the aristocracy…and on diversity I was talking genetic in the terms of adding of other families of the same race at the minimum.
I think you’re glossing over the difference of having wealth vs. ruling over people by means of violence.
Aristocracy has had that same meaning since Plato’s time, its not government its simply those born into the wealthy class. Until the industrial revolution the only members of the aristocracy class were those in the ruling parties of governments.
If you oppose financial equality that means you support the idea of a rich class vs a poor class, and if you have a rich class then you will have people who are born into that class which did no work to get the inheritance of wealth that gets handed down to them.
If you support a rich vs poor class you support the idea of government controlling the poor to prevent just anyone from becoming a member of the aristocracy, thus there will always be conflict and violence in such a system as the poor masses band together to attempt to make wealth for themselves or steal it from the rich.
I oppose a society where there is any type of government, which is why I’m an anarchist. The government is a monopoly on coercion which is as far as I can tell always used by the big corporations to protect themselves from the market forces of competition by the smaller corporations. I propose a culture where people doesn’t attribute any legitimacy to any form of government. In such a culture it would be far more difficult and costly to rule over people, since they don’t support being ruled, which they do today.
As it is today, corporations exploit the perceived legitimacy of government to pass regulations that favor corporate monopolies.
That homogeneous society idea where socialism and traditionalist lifestyles merge is kind of intriguing. So basically you think that Socialism could end up working for the purpose of creating such a society where parasites, both leeches and hoarder, can be eradicated or kept at bay? A friend of mine is pro-Direct Democracy, and while she does seem to appreciate socialism, she thinks that “it can never work forever, no matter how many ad-hoc solutions you can keep apply to it, you can’t fix it.” What I do appreciate about the NatSocs is the idea of looking out for each other and trying to promote protection and health to your own country, neighbor, and things like that, albeit many argue that in Germany they didn’t really do it properly as it was propagandized. She does mention though that something like USSR’s state capitalism could work: still capitalism, but it had work-arounds to common issues of market capitalism. She also says that there currently are examples of organizations, “private” companies, that work entirely per a horizontal structure, though there is research to be done on them.
Basically what you mean is having some kind of proper welfare-based society that isn’t exploitative, has everyone work hard and everyone work to enhance the value of the welfare that is re-distributed to everyone in that society?
Why do people always brandish the terms; leech, parasites, lazy etc… applied exclusively to welfare and social services?
- American Dream = you don’t have to work if you don’t want to.
- not every one can work (elderly infirm, severely mentally ill&mentally retarded, people severely disabled via accidents/combat service, the terminally and severely ill ect…)
- there are plenty of jobs where the person doing the “job” earns millions of dollars literally being lazy or by means of recreation (the entire art and entertainment industry can be considered thus as example)
you don’t have to have a ruling party to have government, you can have socialist systems of equal democracy instead of authoritative systems of direct rule. In a system of financial inequality however some system of government is required otherwise there is nothing preventing anyone from taking what ever they want from the aristocracy; if the aristocracy bands together to control the poor masses guess what? —> that’s authoritative government.
If you have no government in a system of financial inequality you end up with permanent and unchecked war as the poor class fights the aristocracy for the wealth and resources the aristocracy possesses.
Also government is not equal to a form of rule, the term government comes from; govern ; to control ment --> short for mentality aka minds. Government is any system of ideological control over a society.
Financial inequality can not exist without some form of authoritative or noble ruling government (or you can publish a book of codes and rules for every one to agree to observe openly and use that as an alternative style of ruler less government).
I don’t even know where to begin with that. I don’t see how you reach any of those conclusions. But of course I wouldn’t.
You said you opposed financial equality and systems of social welfare (this means by default you support a clear class system which does not give money freely to the poor to care for them). You can not maintain any class system without having some form of government. You do not need a ruling class/faction/party or ruler in order to have a system of working government.
I too was going to throw myself into this one but find it is probably easier to just site on the sidelines… much to much ambiguity of thought… far to many straw-men to burn.
How do you define government?
And by “maintaining a class system”, do you simply mean opposing taxation and opposing coercive redistribution of wealth?
Government; the action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people.
(this is the only definition of the word not containing govern/government in the definition itself).
You cannot maintain any form of financial class structure with out a working form of ideological control or code of rules over a society of peoples which is enforced by some means.
Is a homeowners association a government?
Depends on how exclusive their rules are and how those rules are enforced, on the small scale yes a gated community (a walled off home community with security gate and strict homeowners association which bars access to community from non members) is a localized form of municipal social government.
The main reasons you cant maintain a financial system without government of some-kind;
- wealth must have an agreed upon value
- transfer of wealth must be controlled or the financial hierarchy class will not be maintainable.
Well mostly I was trying to categorize some specific individuals, but I do understand your points too, especially the second point.