Some political notes.
INTRODUCTION
I’ve written this webpage on politics only so as to help people think through their political issues, so that they can move on, to eternal ones.
I use the word communism differently from the way most people use it. I think I use it in its purest sense.
.
POLITICS
Democracy = every person rules. Dictatorship = one person rules. Democracy is more socially complex than dictatorship. Hence democracy is better than dictatorship. ,, ,, See earlier section: GOOD & BAD, RIGHT & WRONG.,,,,, ,, ,, By the above definition: Proportional Representation is more democratic ,, ,, than First Past The Post. Perhaps see: Electoral Reform Society. ,,,,, ,, ,, I suspect it would also lead to less short-term-ism.
A hypothetical, tiny, island nation that’s so richly blessed that it doesn’t need money, cannot have capitalism or communism. But it will still need either democracy or dictatorship. ,, ,, To get agreement on: marriage laws, behavioural laws, festivals, etc. This shows that: Democracy & dictatorship are about people ,, ,, ,, ,, the power structure. Capitalism & communism are about money ,, ,, ,, ,, which does not necessarily mean power. This shows that the two pairs of mechanisms: capitalism & communism &: democracy & dictatorship, can be conceptually separated. This helps to define them.
.
Capitalism = everyone can keep all they’ve made. Communism = everyone must share all they’ve made. Democracy = every person rules. Dictatorship = one person rules. Hence there are four possible extremes: democratic communism democratic capitalism dictatorial communism dictatorial capitalism. All nations fall within these four possible extremes (like four corners of a table).
.
Or, more simply:
The data for the above, abbreviated, charts is from: ,, ,, Our World in Data / Democracy index ,, ,, and: ,, ,, Heritage / index of economic freedom. ,,,,, You may disagree with Norway’s position but I just stuck with the data in the above two links.
.
Capitalism = everyone can keep all they’ve made. Communism = everyone must share all they’ve made. Capitalistic mechanisms produce wealth. Communistic mechanisms then give that wealth a human face. That’s why every civilised nation has both mechanisms to some degree: both capitalistic mechanisms ,, ,, ,, o,, Free markets. ,, ,, ,, o,, Property rights. ,, ,, ,, o,, Anti-monopoly laws. , , , , Perhaps also see: , , , , YouTube: – Watch: Fighting the 3 Mutant Capitalisms | Paul Marshall.,, ,, ,, ,, o,, Etc. and communistic mechanisms. ,, ,, ,, o,, Unions (though they’re needed less as the economy grows). ,, ,, ,, o,, Tax-paid-for, means-tested, needs/ability-tested, free: ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Basic housing (to help sustain birth rates) ,, , , , , , YouTube: – Watch: Population Collapse is a , , , , , , Massive Problem - Dr Paul Morland.,,,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Healthcare. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Education. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Unemployment money. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Disability money. ,, ,, ,, o,, Government imposed limits on private rents. ,, ,, ,, o,, Consumer protection laws. ,, ,, ,, o,, Etc. ,, ,, N.B. People’s actual needs are finite. ,, ,, So, the richer a nation gets ,, ,, the less it will need: ,, ,, ,, ,, the above communistic mechanisms ,, ,, ,, ,, and big government.
Why does capitalism, much more than communism, produce wealth? Because, even if you are: a completely selfless person who lives only to help others, you would still have: structured your life around yourself (because you control only yourself and because you need resources to function). God designed the material of the universe, hence of nature: & hence the flesh & souls of animals & hence the flesh & souls of humans , , (though not the hearts/spirits of humans) to have concentric circles of selfishness: inner circle an animal you midway circle related animals your family/friends outer circle pack/flock/herd your group/nation/bloc. Perhaps see earlier webpage: The design of everything . . . and perhaps earlier section: THE ORIGINS OF: PAIN & PLEASURE AND FEAR & ATTRACTION. . . .
.
Capitalism = the production of wealth – good regardless of its uneven distribution – bad. Communism = the even distribution of wealth – good regardless of who produced it – bad. These goods and bads are impossible to measure. Hence it’s impossible to measure which is best between capitalism and communism. Indeed, it’s pointless to speculate which is best since both are needed.
.
We grow up gradually: 1. First needing supervision (child). 2. Then needing only advice (teen). 3. Finally becoming autonomous (adult). We grow up gradually, from: at home, everything’s paid for , , So you’re free to be passionate about justice. to: you’ve left home, so you pay your own way. , , So you’re free to be whatever you can manage to be. We grow up gradually, hence the saying: “If a person hasn’t voted left-wing by the time they’re 25 – they’ve got no heart. If a person hasn’t voted right-wing by the time they’re 40 – they’ve got no brain.”
.
Youngsters have always tended to be communistic. But, these days, in the West, most teachers, by far, are communistic too. Hence youngsters’ education today is particularly politically imbalanced. See: YouTube: – “They’re Lying About Your History” – Rafe Heydel-Mankoo.,,,,, I suggest balancing it by using Wikipedia. , , Wikipedia is mostly or entirely unbiased , , and has got to give its sources. Also, when you’re on YouTube etc, often search for the opposite of what you’d normally search for. That will stop the algorithms from keeping you in a left-wing echo chamber. This applies to people who are stuck in a right-wing echo chamber as well. , , Actually, YouTube algorithms struggle with this. , , So perhaps look on two, unlinked, devices. , , Or, better still, find a sensible person, , , but with opposite views to you, , , and have face to face discussions with them. , , Perhaps also see earlier section: , , THINKING TOOLS THAT I USED. . . . , , Perhaps also see , , YouTube: – Jonathan Haidt on the Mental-Health Crisis ,, ,, and Smartphones | WSJ News. ,,,,,
.
Left-wing and right-wing should be limited to: capitalistic mechanisms &: communistic mechanisms. Unfortunately however: parties wanting to increase their votes and causes lobbying one party or the other, result in all sorts of issues wrongly becoming party political. Such issues might be: national (e.g. immigration) or: global (e.g. global warming) and may need resources that they won’t consistently get as parties go in and out of office. , , Regarding global warming: , , , Any nation that goes green , , , (though nuclear is best in my opinion) , , , disadvantages itself economically. , , , Hence the current lack of co-operation, indeed animosity, , , , between many of the world’s nations , , , is a much bigger obstacle than technology & cost.
.
THE WEST
The West (particularly the USA) was founded mostly on Protestant Christianity. I write ‘mostly on Protestant Christianity’ because slavery was one of the foundations of early America. And slavery is, obviously, anti-Christian. Wikipedia: William Wilberforce. ,,,,, Wikipedia: Slavery. ,,,,, Hence all Western cultures are now: tolerant, caring, balanced (e.g. even feminine to a degree), etc, relative to other world cultures. Perhaps see: YouTube: – In Defence Of Western Values | ARC Off-Stage. ,,,
You may say: “That the West is tolerant, caring, etc, is nothing to do with its Christian past.” I reply: “It would be improbable for all the nations that were once morally characterised by Protestant Christianity to now be relatively tolerant & caring for some other, un-obvious, reason.”
.
DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
The mechanisms: diversity, equity, and inclusion, Wikipedia: diversity, equity, and inclusion, ,,, only occur in Western nations, in ex-Protestant-Christian democracies: Democracies where: Christians had been the majority. Hence that majority loved everyone because God caused them to. But where now: Unbelievers are the new majority. Unbelievers who: Reject the: God component of Christianity. But keep the: people love people component of Christianity.
Hence the mechanisms: diversity, equity, & inclusion, were built in: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, but not in: China, India, the Middle East, Africa, etc. Hence, also, the mechanisms: diversity, equity, & inclusion, are powered by: laws, not by: love. E.G. Not by people saying: “I’m sorry” and: “I forgive you”.
.
We are made of the same material as animals. Yet we are eternal. Hence: we added: justice to: the law of the jungle to make it: the ways of the world. The ways of the world are everywhere. And the ways of the world eventually need, & so also eventually produce, both: capitalistic mechanisms and: communistic mechanisms. ,, ,, See earlier cell, starting Capitalism = everyone.,,,,, Hence communistic mechanisms, being everywhere, are in Western nations. The Western nations’ left-wing then combined: communistic mechanisms with: people love people to make: diversity, equity and inclusion, the legislation of love.
The trouble is – love cannot be legislated. ,, ,, Legislating love produces fake love. ,, ,, (See: 1 Cor c13 NIV for a definition of love.) This is why Western nations’ left-wing lacks the communistic mechanism equal income (many of its advocates are rich & intend staying that way).
.
In the following three cells I split the mechanisms diversity, equity and inclusion, into three parts (easier to analyse). a) is good, b) is good, c) is only partly good. ,, ,, See earlier section: GOOD & BAD, RIGHT & WRONG.,,,,,
a) Equal social acceptance of people of different cultures (i.e. different: ethnicities, classes, religions, opinions, etc). ,, Inner qualities. N.B. Some pairs of cultures have parts that are incompatible with each other. In which case the only practical answer is to value: the West’s overarching acceptance culture even more you value: the individual cultures it accepts (even if that includes their own culture). ,, ,, ,, Perhaps change ‘you’ to ‘most/all of the people’. Hence the maxim: I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend, to the death, your right to say it.” ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Voltaire, via Evelyn Beatrice Hall. . . . Notice that Voltaire’s maxim has an implied condition in it: I disapprove of what you say. But I will defend, to the death, your right to say it as long as your words are not attacking someone else’s right to say what they want to say.”
b) Equal social acceptance of people of different: colour, body shape, ability, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc. , Relatively outer, static, qualities.
c) Equal educational outcomes & work outcomes for all people: , Relatively inner, dynamic, qualities. This can only be done by restricting the more able’s applications so as to increase the success of the less able’s. Hence this mechanism is only partly good: Some gain. Some lose. If the positions are important, (directors, managers, pilots, etc) then, if not allocating jobs by merit alone, poorer decisions etc will be made leading to the company’s/nation’s loss. Even with less important jobs it may be counterproductive. Should there be a law that says that 50% of ladies’ hairstylists & nail manicurists must be heterosexual males that includes bricklayers, truck drivers, etc? Indeed, merit alone, if it is genuinely alone, merit alone, without prejudice, actually solves D.E.I problems. Consider the popular fighter pilot Wikipedia: Ian Gleed, and, of course, Wikipedia: Alan Turing. ,,,,,
I reckon people crave to see equality of outcomes because, ironically: They don’t see people. They see only the world and its hierarchy and: strive to correct the world, even if atheists, try to put God into the world. But God & the world are different: The world values people according to what they can do. God values people, they don’t have to do anything. Luke c15 NIV,,,
.
The earlier cell: c) Equal educational etc ,,,,, is not guaranteed to improve democracy & the economy.
The earlier cell: a) Equal social etc ,,,,, is already a vital part of democracy & the economy.
But the earlier cell: b) Equal social etc ,,,,, definitely improves democracy & the economy: This is because, in a democracy: minority groups will always fear the power of, always be at the mercy of, the majority group. ,, ,, ,, ,, Human rights laws partly correct this, but not fully. I reckon quality communication is the answer. Or, to be precise, quality old-school communication is the answer. (Internet algorithms have discovered, for themselves, that outrage gets the most clicks.) Or, to be precise, quality old-school communication is only part of the answer. The rest of the answer is either: love, or laws. But, laws that favour minorities, that super-support minorities, that compensate for their democratic weakness, especially if imposed undemocratically, or even if imposed democratically, cause the same kinds of problems that they solve. So the only answer left is love.
To conclude: In order to clearly improve democracy, b) Equal social etc must be added. And that can only be done by: o quality old-school communication ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Interviews, logic & science, documentaries, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, films & plays, talk shows, comedians, etc. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, Perhaps see my own contribution to this, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, from GOD’S WORDS ON SIN down to TRANSGENDERISM. ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, (Bear in mind that I wrote that webpage for Christians.) o and love. Admittedly love is not a mechanism that politicians (or anyone) can readily control. But that’s as good as it gets.
.
PRIORITIES
The main task of a democracy is to make a dictatorship as difficult to form as possible. Hence, for example, the components of the United Kingdom are (or were) as overlapping as possible: the judiciary is above everyone yet some laws are made by politicians who can be expelled from office by a story unearthed by the free press which can be sued if it’s wrong by ordinary citizens who vote politicians into government which decides on big policies which may affect everyone etc. So no one person is in power, or, conversely, everyone is in power. ,, ,, N.B. Laura Spinney writes, in her article Reimagining Democracy, ,, ,, in New Scientist magazine, 5^th Oct 2024, ,, ,, how the UK’s [& similar nations’] democracy ,, ,, could be greatly improved by using digital technology.
Hence if a party, left right or middle, values: its policies more than: democracy then it’s a disaster waiting to happen: They’d be thinking: “We can see that our policies are the best ones for our nation. So, next time we’re in office, let’s tweak things so that we’re never out of office again.”
Satan loves dictatorships: “So few words. So much effect.”
.
Home page	End of site.