The Inevitability of Moral Breakdown in Democracies Where All Can Vote

Zeknichov

Pigeon
There are two main pressures at work on society right now and furthermore there is an interaction between the two pressures.

- The pressure from having a democracy where everyone can vote.

- The pressure from having a breakdown of a common impersonal moral code in society.

- The interaction between the breakdown of a moral code and how it is used by those in a democracy who wish to elevate their station.

1. The first pressure is a recent pressure. What many people don't realize is that is is only rather recently in modern history within the last 100 years and in some democracies (the USA, within the last 60), where almost anyone could vote. It used to be only men that could and even at that, only men with net positive tax contributions or sufficient wealth to indicate being a productive member of society.

Women and men have fundamental differences in their objectives in life. Women seek safety, security and essentially what many of them call "independence from men". The reality is that they don't seek independence from men but they seek security that good men can provide. Women would have no issues being "dependent" on a man if they felt that man was perfect such that she had nothing to fear regarding her security. He wouldn't die and leave her nothing, he wouldn't leave her, he would never mistreat her, etc... No man can guarantee this so there is always a risk to a woman, which women dislike. This is why women vote for authoritarian governments and socialist policies. They seek to replace men with the government for their safety and security. If the government provides everything they need in life such that they no longer need to rely on a single man, they can then rely on the collective of men which through diversification offers women more safety and security than any single man ever could. Women thus vote for collectivism and socialism. This system that women vote for is entirely unjust though and selfish toward women without regard for others. What women are doing is essentially pointing a gun at everyone who disagrees with them (the police will come after you if you choose not to pay taxes) and saying if you do not give me the product of your work (women vote on how to tax and redistribute the taxes revenue in a manner that benefits them) so that I can be safe and secure, you will be thrown in prison. Meanwhile, the women give nothing (no comfort, no love and no family) in return to the men who contribute toward their safety and security. This discourages men entirely from being motivated to partake in society.

Men on the other hand seek freedom for themselves and they wish to provide for women. The more collectivist and socialist the system becomes, the harder it is for men to have their own freedom and the less women rely on individual men so the less ability men are to fill the role of provider which completely reduces a man's value in society based on how he values himself and how women value him. Men thus vote for individualism, freedom and justice.

Now obviously not all women and not all men vote for the same thing because there's another dynamic at play which is the dynamic of incompetent people. Typically, incompetent people would not have voted in a democracy for good reason but now we have competent people, that do not contribute anything positive to society, being able to vote. These people obviously vote in a manner that benefits them and that manner is to oppress competent people to redistribute resources toward incompetent people. These people align themselves with the general political vision women align themselves with.

2. The second pressure is a pressure that many societies have faced historically and none have ever come back from. This is the pressure of liberalizing morality. Once your society losses its sense of a common morality grounded in an impersonal moral code such that everyone no longer shares the same concept of morality and justice especially, all political discourse reduces to emotion instead of logic and reason. The reason for this is because without common morality rooted in an impersonal moral code, people begin to develop humanist moral codes based on the individual and thus all moral codes are different yet equal in regard. When you communicate a political idea to another person there will always be disagreement because the perspective of what is right and what is wrong and what people deserve in society is always different yet people believe their concept of morality should be shared by everyone or they are "evil" (they are wrong). This results in discussion breaking down from logic to emotion because people are now fueled by their zeal in how right or wrong their moral perspective is. You cannot have logical discourse to progress a society with another person when your concepts of right and wrong and so fundamentally different. Thus all politics reduces to emotional discussions and progress is stifled by society's lack of moral code.

3. When you lose a common sense of morality grounded in an impersonal moral code, it becomes easier for the people pushing for incompetence to triumph over competence to justify their position because they can claim moral superiority for their position and no competing moral code is able to combat such a claim by offering anything other then a moral code that will be regarded as equal in validity at best, thus it is not strong enough to gain popular support. In a society with a common understanding of morality, the bad actors would not necessarily gain popular support because the society at large would understand the immorality of their political positions.

The end result of these pressures is seen in society today. We begin moving away from a unified society that promotes liberty, justice, happiness and one in which the superior differences between people are recognized and appreciated by society so that these superior talents can be contributed toward progressing and strengthening the society as a whole cohesive unit. Instead we have a breakdown of unity, limited liberty, no concept of justice and everyone is miserable while continuing to try and improve themselves without understanding why no matter what they do they cannot find the fulfillment they truly seek in life. Our society is promoting mediocrity which is causing it to regress toward the mean instead of progressing forward and this is causing society to stagnate as a whole which leads to people pursuing nothing more than their basic impulses because there is no greater goal of progress to be motivated to work toward. This stagnation in progress is highly beneficial to the existing powers and elite because it reduces competition and helps to solidify their wealth and rule in place, hence why powerful globalists continue to push this social structure on the world. In then end what we are ultimately pursuing as a society is a society of slaves, not empowered free men.

Solution: An impersonal moral code must be decided on. Christianity provides the best basis for this but any will do. The moral code must promote chastity since sexual liberation is the root cause of moral degradation. There are scientific reasons for this but that's worth another topic. The moral code must also clearly define justice and should promote superiority. Once the code is decided on it must be embraced by society as a whole and no separation between the moral code and the state must exist. It must be taught in academia as being the dominant moral code and not seriously challenged by other codes. Women should not be allowed to vote, only people with a net positive tax contribution to the government should vote and the minimum voting age should be 30yos. Ideally, all social programs and public institutions should be abolished while taxes are reduced immensely. The role of the state needs to be reduced immensely. Nationalism must be embraced over globalism.
 
Last edited:
I think you're both overthinking it and oversimplifying it. The giveaway line in your essay is--

Christianity provides the best basis for this but any will do.
--which leads to the situation of the blind leading the blind in circles that is the travesty known as the Alt-Right. The problem with purely rationalistic, naturalistic analyses like yours is that it underestimates the level to which man's offenses against God have led to the situation we have now, as well as how relegating following Him and His Church as one valid option among many (hello, Freemasonic indifferentism) obscures the need for spiritual reparation.
 

godfather dust

Ostrich
Gold Member
I think you're both overthinking it and oversimplifying it. The giveaway line in your essay is--



--which leads to the situation of the blind leading the blind in circles that is the travesty known as the Alt-Right. The problem with purely rationalistic, naturalistic analyses like yours is that it underestimates the level to which man's offenses against God have led to the situation we have now, as well as how relegating following Him and His Church as one valid option among many (hello, Freemasonic indifferentism) obscures the need for spiritual reparation.
Yeah the problem with the alt right is they are doing a great job breaking down layers of corruption and exposing the west as a pure oligarchy, but don't have a valid plan for building a new system.
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
I think you're both overthinking it and oversimplifying it. The giveaway line in your essay is--



--which leads to the situation of the blind leading the blind in circles that is the travesty known as the Alt-Right. The problem with purely rationalistic, naturalistic analyses like yours is that it underestimates the level to which man's offenses against God have led to the situation we have now, as well as how relegating following Him and His Church as one valid option among many (hello, Freemasonic indifferentism) obscures the need for spiritual reparation.
I obviously posted my topic to have a discussion because I'm by no means a prophet.

I think it comes down to objective of belief. I've met a number of Christians that believe in simply aligning your life with God and then doing nothing further. Embracing one's persecution by the rest of the world is the pinnacle of one's faith. These people seek to influence nothing in the world at large because God is in control and nothing they do will matter. I've heard similar accounts by stoics as well.

Is this the right answer? Is there no taste to the salt of this earth that we men represent? Men can enact change in this life through their actions. You see the results of decisions you and others make everyday. I propose choosing to act. This life may not matter but there's no reason it needs to be an unpleasant experience. Why not choose to enact positive change or at least create communities of similar faiths/beliefs/morals that try to act as strength against the persecution and oppression that exists today?

Everyone thinks their religion is superior. I'm no good on arguing about religious superiority but it appears to be from the study I've done that every religion shares fairly common moral structures in actuality anyway.
 

Elipe

Woodpecker
Yeah the problem with the alt right is they are doing a great job breaking down layers of corruption and exposing the west as a pure oligarchy, but don't have a valid plan for building a new system.
The founding fathers didn't exactly sit down and figure out a valid plan until after they were done tearing down the old system. And besides, do we really need to work that hard at figuring out a new system other than rebooting America? I figure that you could get pretty good results by throwing out the demographics that is causing the majority of problems in America and then throwing out ALL the Constitutional Amendments. ALL OF THEM. And then we declare that the Constitution is a positive document (powers explicitly granted to the government is what is in the document) rather than a negative document (the government has all powers except what the document says it doesn't have).
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
The founding fathers didn't exactly sit down and figure out a valid plan until after they were done tearing down the old system. And besides, do we really need to work that hard at figuring out a new system other than rebooting America? I figure that you could get pretty good results by throwing out the demographics that is causing the majority of problems in America and then throwing out ALL the Constitutional Amendments. ALL OF THEM. And then we declare that the Constitution is a positive document (powers explicitly granted to the government is what is in the document) rather than a negative document (the government has all powers except what the document says it doesn't have).
That works for the state itself but not for its citizens. Without the morality I speak to, you will simply end up down the path of degrading the constitution again.
 

STG

Robin
It isn't a coincidence that the USA is rapidly declining at the same time the racial character of the country is changing.

A country is made up of people, not imaginary boundaries that are set by man and drawn on a piece of paper.

This is what caused the fall of Rome.

https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Emperor-Historians-Reasons-Decline/dp/1684549795

Including the work of Professors Tenney Frank, A.M. Duff, Charles Merivale, George La Piana, Theodor Mommsen, and the multiple authors of the Cambridge Ancient History and the Encyclopedia Britannica’s Historians’ History of the World. Introduction by Arthur Kemp, BA (Pub.Ad., Pol., Sci., Int. Pol.).

Although many historians have either ignored the racial factor in the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, there have been many who recognized race as the critical element in Rome’s history.

The essay in this book summarizes all the points made by these authors and provides a critically-needed antidote to modern liberal historical interpretations which pretend that race does not exist–and that racial change was the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire.

Illustrated, contains full facsimile of Professor Tenney’s “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire” as first published in the American Historical Review, July 1916.
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
It isn't a coincidence that the USA is rapidly declining at the same time the racial character of the country is changing.

A country is made up of people, not imaginary boundaries that are set by man and drawn on a piece of paper.

This is what caused the fall of Rome.

https://www.amazon.com/Slave-Emperor-Historians-Reasons-Decline/dp/1684549795



You can definitely apply this argument to the Weimar Republic and the fall of it. Germany was devastated after WWI leaving very few young men which allowed the Jewish investors to take up camp and cement their power as they filled the void. This racial divide led to a moral decline in that civilization leading to WWII. Interesting stuff. I may check out this book, thanks for the recommendation.
 

LeoniusD

Woodpecker
In the book he says that late Roman names came clearly predominantly from the Middle East. So they do the same in Europe now enriching the West. Could be true indeed.

There are reports that the same happened with Persia which allowed countless tribes to settle in their midst due to their economic and cultural success - just as many nations they underestimated the importance of demographics. Even now we might presume that we know better as metrics like intelligence and mentality can be measured much better. But no.... the West embarks on an even more suicidal path that will be laughed at in the future by the still existing and prosperous countries of China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan - and oh Israel - better not forget Israel who likes to virtue-signal and promote enrichment for everyone but themselves.
 

STG

Robin
In the book he says that late Roman names came clearly predominantly from the Middle East. So they do the same in Europe now enriching the West. Could be true indeed.

There are reports that the same happened with Persia which allowed countless tribes to settle in their midst due to their economic and cultural success - just as many nations they underestimated the importance of demographics. Even now we might presume that we know better as metrics like intelligence and mentality can be measured much better. But no.... the West embarks on an even more suicidal path that will be laughed at in the future by the still existing and prosperous countries of China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan - and oh Israel - better not forget Israel who likes to virtue-signal and promote enrichment for everyone but themselves.
Persia/Iran went through a similiar demographic collapse where the natives were replaced by foreigners.

Zoroastrian Iranians are the last remaining descendents of the original peoples of Persia. They have been in decline ever since, surprise surprise, the Islamic invasion of Persia.

What is happening is an age old story that has repeated many times before.

Persia, Rome, North Africa, Spain, Hellas.... its all the same story.

some of this is correct: https://iranian.com/2008/03/06/blond-blue-eyed-iranians/

https://www.history.com/topics/religion/zoroastrianism
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
"Democracy" only works when it's restricted to the most responsible, farthest-thinking people in a society. That's why the Founders of the United States restricted it to land-owning men: these guys were thinking in the long term and weren't going to vote for foolish, short-sighted interests. Unfortunately, the USA in its current state is far beyond recovery, at this point a monarchy would be a drastic improvement.
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
In the book he says that late Roman names came clearly predominantly from the Middle East. So they do the same in Europe now enriching the West. Could be true indeed.

There are reports that the same happened with Persia which allowed countless tribes to settle in their midst due to their economic and cultural success - just as many nations they underestimated the importance of demographics. Even now we might presume that we know better as metrics like intelligence and mentality can be measured much better. But no.... the West embarks on an even more suicidal path that will be laughed at in the future by the still existing and prosperous countries of China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan - and oh Israel - better not forget Israel who likes to virtue-signal and promote enrichment for everyone but themselves.
The only thing I'm not convinced on is that it's any race in particular. I just think any society that opens itself up to different cultures (something typically correlated with race) eventually leads to collapse due to the moral chaos it creates. It's not the color of one's skin but it's the differing sense of morality. Once you shock a culture with the concept of subjective morality such that moral nihilism is promoted over a common moral code, you get degradation of your whole society because progress can only occur when you have unity which requires a common moral code.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
Great posts and thought provoking distillations of many of our ideas. Perhaps a bit rushed at the end with the conclusion/next steps/solutions, but overall a well developed post, Zeknichov :)
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
Great posts and thought provoking distillations of many of our ideas. Perhaps a bit rushed at the end with the conclusion/next steps/solutions, but overall a well developed post, Zeknichov :)
Thanks. I think solutions are always the hardest part and definitely one that would require the most refining. Feel free to add your thoughts on the subject as that was my intended purpose.
 

Blade Runner

Kingfisher
The only thing I'm not convinced on is that it's any race in particular. I just think any society that opens itself up to different cultures (something typically correlated with race) eventually leads to collapse due to the moral chaos it creates. It's not the color of one's skin but it's the differing sense of morality. Once you shock a culture with the concept of subjective morality such that moral nihilism is promoted over a common moral code, you get degradation of your whole society because progress can only occur when you have unity which requires a common moral code.
You're on to something here because cultural relativism (which comes out of many cultures mish mashed) is additive to the breakdown of religion, since the politically correct types or kumbaya people don't want others to feel excluded, so they have to make up bullshit about how everyone is equal or "all paths lead to X".

Perhaps the more interesting thing here is that now that we know we are in major decline (not that we didn't before), what happens? And what has happened historically? A lot of those great empires persisted in some fashion, some much longer than we even know or care to pay attention to.
 

gework

Ostrich
Gold Member
I didn't have time to read the other responses but a few quick notes.

On morality, we have seen the breakdown of of a single moral code that took 100s of years to establish, into various moral codes (Christian denominations) and then to what you describe as humanism, but it's really whatever anyone thinks. Thus we now have millions of differing moral codes, in which many people play the role of God. It is not possible for a society to continue on this path and be remotely harmonious.

The rank and file leftists that are pushing this think they are progressing society to new heights, failing to see they are pushing us back towards the days of barbarism. Here is an extract written about 2,000 years ago by the Greek geographer and historian Pompolous Mela:

* this concerns a Celtic people in what is now Bulgaria:

the Thracians inhabit the whole country, termed by sundry names, and endowed with diverse dispositions. Some are utterly wild and very willing to die, namely the Gets, and that is established through sundry opinions. For some of them think that the soles of them that die, shall return into their bodies again. And other sort think, that through the souls return not, yet they die not, but pass into a more blessed state. Others think they die, but that dying is better then to live. And therefore among some of them, childbearing is sorrowful and they mourn for them that be born; and counterwise, the burials are joyful, and solemised with singing and playing, as if they were the high holy days. Not so much as the women, have cowardly or faint courages: for they sue even with all their hearts, to be killed upon the carcasses of their dead husbands, and to be buried with them. And because the men have many wives at once, they plead very earnestly before judges, which of them may come to that honour. It is imputed to their good behaviour, and it is the gravest joy to them that can be, to get the upper hand in this kind of suit.
You will find similar tales of recent times in Africa and elsewhere.

In times of barbarism you would find cultures that shared many facets, but by going to the next settlement you would find people with completely different views on things. This caused endless conflict and people could not easily interact due to these large differences. This is where the left is taking us again with it's diversity of everyone being their own source of morality (so long as you are on the left).

Civilisations have had a few facets:

- a unifying religion and moral code with as few deities as possible, multiple deities cause conflicts between personality types
- a strong ruler who assists the clergy in the imposition of the moral code
- a prohibition of polygamy and support of marriage until death

All civilizations have had those facets, bar Islam, which compromises on the last with limited polygamy (a reform of free polygamy)

These civilisations follow certain patterns, which involve the merging of disparate religious entities into a ordered pantheon and then a monotheistic religion; and the merging of settlements into kingdoms and then universal empires.

It is my opinion that there is a need for a comprimise between freedom and fascism to maintain civilisation. Where fascism is the binding up of multiple areas of society into a universal and limited scope. Liberalism is useful, but it should not be pursued by most and should be limited to high art, science etc. Morality should not be liberal and people should not live their life with liberal sentiments.


Someone posted this recently:

Presuming that everybody is equal (when they are quite demonstrably not in nature) has resulted in the less equal pressuring government for more favors, more privileges, to place them on a pedestal elevating them to the level of the more fortunately born, without a commensurate increase in responsibility.
I didn't note who. I save some things to a knowledge stash.

 

Aboulia

Robin
I obviously posted my topic to have a discussion because I'm by no means a prophet.

I think it comes down to objective of belief. I've met a number of Christians that believe in simply aligning your life with God and then doing nothing further. Embracing one's persecution by the rest of the world is the pinnacle of one's faith. These people seek to influence nothing in the world at large because God is in control and nothing they do will matter. I've heard similar accounts by stoics as well.

Is this the right answer? Is there no taste to the salt of this earth that we men represent? Men can enact change in this life through their actions. You see the results of decisions you and others make everyday. I propose choosing to act. This life may not matter but there's no reason it needs to be an unpleasant experience. Why not choose to enact positive change or at least create communities of similar faiths/beliefs/morals that try to act as strength against the persecution and oppression that exists today?

Everyone thinks their religion is superior. I'm no good on arguing about religious superiority but it appears to be from the study I've done that every religion shares fairly common moral structures in actuality anyway.
All share fairly common moral structures because there is a universal morality among people. Christ is the manifestation of that universal morality embedded in a person. God came down in a real person to provide the model humanity should follow. Most "Christians" aren't Christian. They simply claim to be because their parents/grandparents were, much like the Jews laid claim to Moses.

You can and should act. Ask those Christians, what exactly do they mean that they're aligning their life with God? It's not just mental, it has to manifest itself in the physical realm. I'm reading a book Ukrainian Nationalism right now that's directly relevant to this. He uses a Slavic word or two because he's talking about a monks critique of social policy, I hope it provides some insight.

The opposite of modern materialism and capitalist bureaucratization is the monastic life of self denial. It is a self-denial not merely for it's own sake (which would make no sense), but as a means to see the world clearly. To remove the temptation of material things in order to focus on liberating the Spirit from the body, or more accurately, the "flesh" as the negative element of the body. Liberating the spirit is a result of decades of labor.

The only justification of "rule" in all of its many senses, is based only on service and sacrifice. The opposite of this is modern rule: government (broadly speaking) based on economic and class self interest. Christ is the "wise simpleton" who was able to cut to ribbons the very academic and self-righteous Judaic rhetorical traps...

....The complete opposite of the Talmud, and the radically materialist and racial-supremacist it contains in huge numbers, is the simplicity of Christ. He never hid behind academic verbiage, titles, or an arbitrarily interpreted law. He condemned the Pharisees, and their response, to oversimplify a bit, is the Talmud. The role of the monk, therefore, was to take over the role of the prophet -- the very prophets who condemned apostate Israel (typified by the Pharisees and their allies) and were, as a result, murdered by them.

Pravda is the nature of all true relationships. Pravda is one of the most complex words in the Slavonic language... In Vyshenskii's reading, it is a relationship. It is a relationship based on truth. But truth and justice are not distinct, especially in action. Truth leads to justice, and just relations must be based on truth. The opposite of truth here is self interest. The enslaved will that takes it's own desires as the sine qua non of it's existence. It is based on a lie because self-interest will distort reality so as to present it more conveniently for the willer. Therefore, truth is a matter of freedom. It is the will unencumbered by the demands of the soul's lower nature. It is no accident that, with the exception of Kant, the Enlightenment rejected this concept of the will.

Nationalism is the organization of Pravda. Pravda can only be grasped in a relationship. A nation is a group of people united by socially significant markers, and an eternal threat to tyrants everywhere. Language, religion, basic morals, general political outlook and many other objects serve as markers that separate one nation from another. The nation, in a sense, becomes an actual "person" with a will and a set of interests. Internally, however the main concern is solidarity-- service and love in it's true non-maudlin sense. While nations have an inherent right to defend themselves (the right based on mere self preservation) their internal organization should be based on solidarity, not self interest or any form of competition.

Vyshenskii, in his social criticism, makes a profound point that is one of the reasons he is largely ignored: paganism is not the worship of carved images. Christians who own serfs and merely follow their self interest at all times might convince themselves that they are not pagans merely because they don't believe in Zues. But this is such a poor and puerile definition of "Paganism" to make it a useless concept. The idea of the "pagan" is anyone who "takes the work of man's hands" and treats it as the telos of creation. Capitalism and socialism -- the veritable worship of technology -- is the essence of paganism in the modern world. The man who buys an expensive set of rims for the SUV or yet another silly tattoo is a pagan. The human sacrifice that must be engaged is the sacrifice of the interests of his wife, family, and those around him that might actually need that money.

All paganism is about sacrifice, though never self sacrifice. The ultimate pagan is the vampire: those who would murder others as to live forever. Capitalist speculation, whether on currency or commodities, is the instutionalization of vampirism and the apogee of an ancient Gnostic paganism that only communicated these things in symbols....

Monasticism is not a way of life for monks. They might live it at it's highest level of sacrifice and development, but it is not just for them.... Simplicity and directness is the highest social truth.

Modern Regimes use and manipulate abstract concepts like law. Law, it often seems, especially from the positivists, exists because it exists. A millionaire can convince himself that his money and power is "legitimate" because he "followed the law" in his accumulation...

Law is a manifestation of justice. It is the "physical" manifestation of Pravda. If a set of laws, written down and passed "by the competent authorities" is based on falsehood, then it is not a law. Truth, when it is not written down or even accepted by most, remains a law in the highest and most useful sense of the word.

There is no distinction between justice, truth, freedom, and law. They all imply one another. They are based on the "free will" in the patristic -- and later Kantian -- concept of it. The will is not born free. The free will must be struggled for. It's part of what makes the monastic life so attractive. The free will is one based on no self-interest or any other passion. Such a will then can only see the General Will in Rousseau's sense

The General Will is precisely that "which is left over" when all personal interests and egocentric attachments are eliminated. Yet, Kant writes as if this is in the grasp of just anyone. The reality is that this is one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish. It is based solely on grace, working in connection with ascetic labors. The free will, in other words, can never be experienced by a man with a full stomach.

Matthew Raphael Johnson - pg 57-61
 

Zeknichov

Pigeon
All share fairly common moral structures because there is a universal morality among people. Christ is the manifestation of that universal morality embedded in a person. God came down in a real person to provide the model humanity should follow. Most "Christians" aren't Christian. They simply claim to be because their parents/grandparents were, much like the Jews laid claim to Moses.

You can and should act. Ask those Christians, what exactly do they mean that they're aligning their life with God? It's not just mental, it has to manifest itself in the physical realm. I'm reading a book Ukrainian Nationalism right now that's directly relevant to this. He uses a Slavic word or two because he's talking about a monks critique of social policy, I hope it provides some insight.
Interesting. He's clearly anti-capitalist though, something I am not. Capitalism seems to me to be the most just system of economics we have at our disposal. It's the corruption of capitalism toward communism that has led to the majority of the oppression people see in the system today.

A philosopher I once read suggested capitalism and communism led to the same outcomes in an ideal sense and neither were better or worse than the other but that it was the morality of the society as a whole which dictated the morality of the economic system itself. The main difference between the two is that capitalism is decentralized while communism is not which means it's actually easier to corrupt communism because you can do so with less people being corrupted; thus capitalism is better, presuming both societies are equal in their sense of morality. Meaning, in relation to what Matthew says, that if the whole society had a common sense of morality, then capitalism would be a desirable system because even though you may be competing on an individual level, you still maintain a common understanding of right and wrong and those that act immoral are disregarded by society at large. In relation to nationalism and unity, it is quite possible for people to set sub-priorities. Family first, then immediate community, then country while still weighing your own interests as well. You can still be nationalistic and competitive among your fellow countryman so as to make capitalism work effectively. It's no different than having a friendly game of chess; however, it requires a common moral code and men to both enforce and maintain that code among the social circles of society, otherwise the system degrades into what we have today.
 

Johnny Rico

Woodpecker
“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms” ”
“Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.

The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”
I'll be dropping more Starship Troopers (novel) quotes but we're about to drop on Klendathu and I gotta squash some bugs.
 
Top