You must log in or register to comment.
I do think that relying on government programs instead of voluntary associations will increase poverty over time. Going further into debt, or needing to borrow from the state budget just to stay afloat a little longer, is like taking out one credit card to pay off another. I think that’s a bad idea.
So, to me, choosing not to step up and help solve a problem yourself (for example, through voluntary associations), while instead asking the government to use force to solve it on your behalf (by voting for government programs funded through taxation), is both a bad idea and immoral.
P.S. I know this is not a very Lemmy-friendly opinion, I know you guys tend to love democratic socialism. I think you’re well-intentioned people, but you would cause poverty and stagnation if you got your way, though. Ideally, you wouldn’t rage at me for thinking differently from you. (Take note that I hold no political power & admit I very well could be wrong, or propagandized, or whatever.)
Which societies with low rates of poverty that rely on voluntary associations are you thinking of as examples?
What’s top of mind is Alexis de Tocqueville’s comparisons between the USA and France mentioned in Democracy in America. So I suppose a decent example, with caveats I’d probably have to mention if you were in a super debate-ty mood, would be an older version of the USA, prior to the Federal Reserve. The book is in the public domain btw - https://librivox.org/democracy-in-america-vol-i-by-alexis-de-tocqueville/
So slavery? Or just Jim Crowe? That’s the ideal?
The book is talking about the 1830s so it seems like slavery.
Arguing against a specific idea, such as favoring voluntary associations, by bringing up slavery, which occurred during the same period when those associations were more prominent, is a goofy way to make a point. It would be analogous to arguing that the birth of the internet on January 1, 1983, was a bad thing because gay marriage was not legal at the time or because of some other unrelated thing during that time period.
You appear to be arguing against the time period as a whole rather than addressing the specific policy I support. In other words, you have constructed a straw man argument.
Maybe you should stop crying about schools being underfunded by “violence” and start crying about the MIC/imperialism being massively overfunded for committing genocidal violence around the planet.
Because this bullshit is just a worthless, word salad distraction from the actual underlying problems.
I would agree with you in opposing the wars & Israel’s actions. I also think that is the main concern. Social democratic policies, especially those backed by the world’s reserve currency (2030s social security is projected to have issues), would likely take a while to cause damage similar to what a war or the risk of nuclear proliferation could. (Social democratic policies mostly cause a removal of future growth, i.e., a higher future poverty rate.) I think Israel’s genocidal actions are horrible, & America’s evident limitations are exposed when it engages in wars with huge geographical disadvantages & not enough technological advantages. If America had to declare war on someone (to prop up its wartime economy), it should be Israel. Fighting giant empires like Iran, China, & Russia is strategically stupid; at the very least, pit them against each other rather than trying to fight them all at once. However, obviously I oppose warmongering, but it’s also frustrating how bad they’re at warmongering too.
I appreciate your point of view and, sure, in a different system relying on “voluntary work” would be the best option, self reliant, not dependant on market demand and government issues. Sadly we do not live in a system that allows for any real amount of free time, people that have extra work energy are few and far between, not because they are a bunch of money hogging ghouls but because the average person struggles to pay for his housing, his food, his clothing etc.
I’m under the assumption that the cost of living would decrease if there were a denationalization of money, or at least an asset-backed currency. If I’m wrong about that, then I’m probably wrong about much of my other ideological beliefs. I’m also assuming that a high cost of living, and secularism (which again I know isn’t a popular opinion on Lemmy, since you all tend to love atheism), are barriers to participation in voluntary associations. However, y’all could probably admit that churches make it easy to volunteer. Reliance on government programs also has a crowding-out effect on voluntary associations, which I would equate to fixating on the Eye of Sauron, or on evil itself, instead of trying to work within the realm of the good. Politics is a realm of toxicity that I think we should minimize, & voluntary associations are where we can do the most good & find the most agreement.
P.S. I’m a Christian, but I don’t claim to speak for my religion since I’m a stupid, flawed human with biases, deficiencies, & so on, like we all are.
If I’m wrong about that, then I’m probably wrong about much of my other ideological beliefs
Ideology is bad in general, but especially when it’s based on the imagination.
Holla when you come back to reality.
What do you believe the reality is, & what do you consider to be the facts? What do you assume my ideological beliefs are, that would lead you to claim my ideology is based on my imagination?