From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 13:55:38 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>>I suspect, though nobody has ever said so, that an implict definition
>>of "a socialist is any despotic government that calls itself
>>socialist" is being asserted. But this is also not a useful
>>definition.
>>
>>
>
>On the contrary, it is imminently useful, at least to those who truly
>value individual human liberty. It allows us to easily predict the
>future behavior of governments that exhibit such characteristics, and
>thereby take action ahead of events, as such governments slowly or
>rapidly accrete power.
>
>Governments that declare socialist agendas always trend toward
>acquiring and utilizing despotic power specifically because there are
>always individuals under such governments who dissent from such
>agendas, either for reasons of self interest or for principles.
>
>
I don't see what is added by including "call themselves socialist". And
despotic government is a despotic government. What is added by saying
"Any despotic government that calls itself socialist is despotic."?
Governments that declare any agenda of "We're going to do this for you"
have a tendency to drift into despotism. And thence, I expect, to
monarchy. If they're lucky. But that takes a few generations. And if
they are REALLY lucky, they can reverse the trend before it goes too far.
On that note, have you noticed that the electronic voting systems being
implemented have no audit trail? That's one way of eliminating
accusations of voting fraud. It's impossible to check whether the vote
recorded matches the votes cast. I think it's impossible for anyone to
check, but since the codes are secret, one can't even be sure of that.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:00 MST