SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:07PM
from the interesting-but-not-surprising dept.
from the interesting-but-not-surprising dept.
Three of the four major candidates for United States president have responded to America's Top 20 Presidential Science, Engineering, Technology, Health and Environmental Questions. The nonprofit advocacy group ScienceDebate.org has posted their responses online. Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Jill Stein had all responded as of press time, and the group was awaiting responses from Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Presidential Candidates Answer ScienceDebate 2016 Questions
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 121 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
< nobse> bleh... last night I had a dream... someone NMU'ed vim...
nightmare
-- in #debian-devel
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:12PM
I'm curious, how do you go from being an anarchist to thinking socialism/communism is more just than capitalism? Or even dictatorship? I mean it is hands down the most oppressive form of government possible from an individual liberties perspective.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:29PM
Lol. The very definition of begging the question... "I'm curious. How do you deny reality?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PocketSizeSUn on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:37PM
Seems to me he must be thinking of socialism/communism as their theoretical goals and not as their actual implementation.
The implementation of communism transitions to an authoritarian oppressive regime in only a few years.
Socialism takes a bit longer.
Anarchy (the fairest of any system) unfortunately is so highly susceptible to a dictatorship that it can be guaranteed to transition to one in less than a generation. Realistically it only works for very small communities with no outside threats and lasts about 3-5 years.
So a mix of socialism and capitalism is the best we have in terms of multigenerational stability that provides some level of fairness and individual freedoms. Unfortunately all of these systems are prone to being co-opted so long as humans are drawn to greed and power to which there is apparently no cure :-).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM
It was Plato who already stated ("The State" is the work to look for) that any form of democracy will be followed up by tyranny. The type of economic foundation (Capitalism, Communism, Anarchy/Free market, Socialism) does not matter in this. I'm however not sure, that Capitalism can transcend into Oligarchy first (enough examples worldwide).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:54PM
I'm curious, how do you go from being an anarchist to thinking socialism/communism is more just than capitalism? Or even dictatorship?
You are right, the application of socialism/communism is in practice no different, if not worse, than declared capitalism: worse because it has the added element of being done "in the name of the people" and used as an excuse for the establishment of control and oppression.
First off, I do not believe that the examples of say USSR and others were true communism: those were travesties not unlike the "democracy" in place now in the EU. None of communist/socialist founding concepts were actually applied in practice, like those of representation and decentralization. In fact, one can claim that the systems in the EU and the US are actually worse, because control and oppression are disguised as the freedom gate-keeper.
For the 'anarchist' part of your question, I am afraid you misunderstand: as I stated, anarchism is my personal conviction. In an ideal world where everyone is aware of their boundaries, there is not really a need for a police (or worse, a world police). Personally, I do not need policing or "guidance" from any such institution, nor do I wish to police or be part of said "guidance" system myself.
In practice, and since this is non-applicable, the "next best thing" if you will, is a system where representative election or even lottery or rotation takes place, and the governing bodies are as local and as decentralized as possible each dealing with local issues, never given a chance to transform themselves to any sort of monstrous, federal government-like centralized administrative structure or establish themselves in a parasitic form.
So if we HAVE TO have a system, it should be one that is as representative and fair as possible. So far communism and socialism (in theory!) fit this goal better than others, and if you have another one that I have not heard of I will entertain any suggestion.
Enforcing systems, especially federalism, cannot work: it never has, and it never will, and is a ticking time bomb
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:30PM
[...] one can claim that the systems in the EU and the US are actually worse [...]
Yeah, but no. Not yet.
You (mostly) don't have a secret police that can detain you at any moment (at least in the EU), you can rise up to top positions without being a party member, you can create (almost) any art you like and express yourself in (almost) any way*, ...
*) Local rules and regulations may apply, e.g. no child and animal porn, no walking around naked in places of worship, no swastikas on the territory of the FRG, etc.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday September 15 2016, @01:03AM
You're conflating capitalism and federalism here. They're not even sort of one and the same and there are a lot of "states' rights" types out there who will be only too happy to explain the difference to you.
As for fair, there is nothing fair about socialism. It is, by definition, tyranny of the masses. That's the oppression I was speaking of in socialism/communism rather than the top-down oppression which is really far less oppressive.
Fair would be "what you earn, is yours" and "what what is yours, none make take from you". Liberty-based fairness is actually fair instead of the twisted into loops definition of fairness necessary to call taking from the hard working to support the indolent fair.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:17PM
Hey, you can have all the liberties you want in both, as long as it's for the good of all.