Ideas on how to measure oppressive countries and societies
This is a first and unedited draft.
It is a sad fact that the worse aspects of Socialism (of all parties), their ability to misuse language, to agitate through propaganda and viciously attack their opponents or, worse, their scapegoats, are griping the international arena as well as national and local societies.
Unfortunately, the next generation evil 'ism', the Islamic Fascism, adopted the use of same techniques for their own vicious 'religious' agenda. And make no mistake, the liberals, under the guise of 'science' and 'Separation of State and Church' enforce their own deity-less 'religion' which is not less vicious then the aforementioned.
Liberals took sexual orientation as their cause, muddling the individual possible right to stick with his/her sexual orientation with the 'right' to associate, organize and worse, sanction such orientation as a legitimate socially accepted instead of what it really is - inherent or acquired handicap. All this, disregarding the health of society as a whole.
Not that the other side is so righteous. It is a common phenomenon that highly paid individuals are paid bonuses - that most people understand as rewards for success - even in time of failure. Well, this is a kind of robbery.
The above are but just some of the most visible types of oppression that are common in the world.
In this world where evil is presented as good and good is vilified, it is about time to create a measure for true oppressiveness and to present governments, movements and societies in their true evil light as a counter measure for the liberals' twisted presentation. What I am trying to do here is to give some preliminary basic principles that could be the basis of a comprehensive and cohesive set of rules and measures to test such entities.
The main principle is that the true freedom of the individual must rule supreme, but not at the cost of destabilization of society.
Individual freedoms and rights are only the rights of the individual to do or own something or to prevent government from doing or confiscating something! Never the right of the individual to receive anything or the government to provide it. Entitlements are not freedoms, on the contrary they are type of enslavement (or serfdom) by forcing the individual to receive or, even worse, to provide something, potentially against their will. Moreover, it forces individuals to pay for the entitlements of others, which is another kind of robbery.
However, there is a tendency to create and enforce entitlements on individuals and providers and to enforce religions (e.g. Malaysia and basically most Muslim law countries) even if they are deity-less. Note that in the US for example, education up to a certain age is an entitlement which is misused to coerce the captive recipients and willful (serf) providers to expose or be exposed to the propaganda of the deity-less religion, and to coerce people to pay for it whether they benefit from it, agree with it or not.
Thus the most important right should be the right to opt out of the entitlement or the religion (including the deity-less).
Note that governments are supposed to protect us against robberies, not to either rob us themselves (by funding the entitlements) or side with the robbers (supporting the influential people who take unwarranted bonuses.)
Taxes are a necessary evil! The questions are how high and who is affected. Too high taxes (e.g. Sweden) are a known measure of oppression against the population as a whole or worse, against certain classes or ethnic or religious groups. To add insult to injury, these high taxes are usually used for entitlements of people who are not those that pay the taxes or even are their direct enemies.
Progressive taxes are a direct measure of class warfare and are inherently oppressive.
The best measurement is how equal are the taxes (same percentage for all) and what percentage is the government involvement (taxing and spending) in the GDP. If we impose a minimum threshold for paying taxes, then the question is, are there any safeguards against the poor imposing over-taxation on the non-poor? This question is amplified when there are entitlements for the poor.
Worse then progressive taxes is a new tendency to link a punishment to the individual rather then to the crime (e.g. Finland.) While the current system use same percentage for everybody, the next incarnation would surely be progressive.
Society taboos are not necessarily anti-freedom if they do not prevent upward social mobility of the individual. But the individual must obey these taboos, at least in public. Thus, a cast system that allows for untouchable (e.g. India) should be considered oppressive. Religious taboos and actions should usually be protected, but not when curb the freedom of the adult individual.
Asylum is not a right but a privilege. The state may (or even default to) not giving asylum at all or reserve it to whoever is deemed oppressed by its own standards. Poverty is probably NOT a good enough measurement for granting asylum. Also, one must consider the impact on his/her own society when incompatible ideas trickle in.
There is really no way to formalize all this to a constitution and to protect this constitution against those who would try to corrupt it as we see what is happening in the US toady. What we need to do is to set measurements based on the vague principles above and weigh countries and societies based on these principles. We might be surprised to find Sweden up in the list with Saudi Arabia, but they probably would be very close up there
It is a sad fact that the worse aspects of Socialism (of all parties), their ability to misuse language, to agitate through propaganda and viciously attack their opponents or, worse, their scapegoats, are griping the international arena as well as national and local societies.
Unfortunately, the next generation evil 'ism', the Islamic Fascism, adopted the use of same techniques for their own vicious 'religious' agenda. And make no mistake, the liberals, under the guise of 'science' and 'Separation of State and Church' enforce their own deity-less 'religion' which is not less vicious then the aforementioned.
Liberals took sexual orientation as their cause, muddling the individual possible right to stick with his/her sexual orientation with the 'right' to associate, organize and worse, sanction such orientation as a legitimate socially accepted instead of what it really is - inherent or acquired handicap. All this, disregarding the health of society as a whole.
Not that the other side is so righteous. It is a common phenomenon that highly paid individuals are paid bonuses - that most people understand as rewards for success - even in time of failure. Well, this is a kind of robbery.
The above are but just some of the most visible types of oppression that are common in the world.
In this world where evil is presented as good and good is vilified, it is about time to create a measure for true oppressiveness and to present governments, movements and societies in their true evil light as a counter measure for the liberals' twisted presentation. What I am trying to do here is to give some preliminary basic principles that could be the basis of a comprehensive and cohesive set of rules and measures to test such entities.
The main principle is that the true freedom of the individual must rule supreme, but not at the cost of destabilization of society.
Individual freedoms and rights are only the rights of the individual to do or own something or to prevent government from doing or confiscating something! Never the right of the individual to receive anything or the government to provide it. Entitlements are not freedoms, on the contrary they are type of enslavement (or serfdom) by forcing the individual to receive or, even worse, to provide something, potentially against their will. Moreover, it forces individuals to pay for the entitlements of others, which is another kind of robbery.
However, there is a tendency to create and enforce entitlements on individuals and providers and to enforce religions (e.g. Malaysia and basically most Muslim law countries) even if they are deity-less. Note that in the US for example, education up to a certain age is an entitlement which is misused to coerce the captive recipients and willful (serf) providers to expose or be exposed to the propaganda of the deity-less religion, and to coerce people to pay for it whether they benefit from it, agree with it or not.
Thus the most important right should be the right to opt out of the entitlement or the religion (including the deity-less).
Note that governments are supposed to protect us against robberies, not to either rob us themselves (by funding the entitlements) or side with the robbers (supporting the influential people who take unwarranted bonuses.)
Taxes are a necessary evil! The questions are how high and who is affected. Too high taxes (e.g. Sweden) are a known measure of oppression against the population as a whole or worse, against certain classes or ethnic or religious groups. To add insult to injury, these high taxes are usually used for entitlements of people who are not those that pay the taxes or even are their direct enemies.
Progressive taxes are a direct measure of class warfare and are inherently oppressive.
The best measurement is how equal are the taxes (same percentage for all) and what percentage is the government involvement (taxing and spending) in the GDP. If we impose a minimum threshold for paying taxes, then the question is, are there any safeguards against the poor imposing over-taxation on the non-poor? This question is amplified when there are entitlements for the poor.
Worse then progressive taxes is a new tendency to link a punishment to the individual rather then to the crime (e.g. Finland.) While the current system use same percentage for everybody, the next incarnation would surely be progressive.
Society taboos are not necessarily anti-freedom if they do not prevent upward social mobility of the individual. But the individual must obey these taboos, at least in public. Thus, a cast system that allows for untouchable (e.g. India) should be considered oppressive. Religious taboos and actions should usually be protected, but not when curb the freedom of the adult individual.
Asylum is not a right but a privilege. The state may (or even default to) not giving asylum at all or reserve it to whoever is deemed oppressed by its own standards. Poverty is probably NOT a good enough measurement for granting asylum. Also, one must consider the impact on his/her own society when incompatible ideas trickle in.
There is really no way to formalize all this to a constitution and to protect this constitution against those who would try to corrupt it as we see what is happening in the US toady. What we need to do is to set measurements based on the vague principles above and weigh countries and societies based on these principles. We might be surprised to find Sweden up in the list with Saudi Arabia, but they probably would be very close up there
posted by ZA at 9:36 לפנה״צ
0 comments
