Quote:
Originally Posted by Zylark
Let me put this somewhat simpler then. There are political systems that are realist, in the sense that they do not deny human nature. As such the rules are set by the people for the people, and based on two simple principles. First to ensure as much freedom as possible since free people are generally happy people. Second to ensure safety, even if that entails curbing behaviour that may have a negative effect on others.
Within that framework there are many pragmatic and realist political directions. Liberal, conservative, social-democratic for example.
Then you have political systems that are idealist. That deny human nature. Try to subdue it. Communism is one. Theocracy another, and fascism a third. they all seek utopia defined by a small elite, rather than let people decide for themselves what makes them happy.
|
First, are you willing to answer any of my questions in, say, a quote format? If not, I'll try to respond to all I was given here shortly.
On second thought, since you don't really ask any questions but rather merely make claims, all I can really do is ask you if you really believe that "theocracy", "fascism", and "communism" (not to mention "leader-cults") aren't just human-constructed terms that oversimplify things. So do you?
And if so, do you believe that everyone should believe that? And if so, why, in a hopefully more lengthy answer? If not, then why try to make blanket statements about "realistic" and "pragmatic" leaders/systems, as if irrationality, idealism, and views of unreality (as in things that aren't recognized as inherent
yet) are not also inherent? If you don't believe communism is realistic and rational, I have video for you to watch and respond to. It allowed me to see just how much the Enlightened thinking of Europe permeated the Soviet society. Sure, we might view what they did as idealistic rationalism, but isn't any "ism" idealistic? Or is it a perfect, all-encompassing concept? [Perfect's idealistic, as well.]