- Joined
- Jan 29, 2024
- Messages
- 4,071
- Online time
- 1d 21h
- Reputation
- 9,566
In a few thousands of years ago, what are, today, human rights were just privileges..., the quantity and quality of human rights only increases as time passes, thus pushing new comfortable positions as the new " norm and universal ideal ".
The problem with that is that everybody who is latte in Acquaring that ideal of living is interpreted as a miserable victim.
While, of course, I positively see human rights and the evilness of our time, it is also problematic how this system creates superficial victim mentality and how leftist ideals can be rationalized.
Said that, it apears quiet clearly to me that slavery can be wrong if perpetrated against those of high ethics and morality. Therefore, some levels of human rights are justifiable?
Russia, with Putin, is a neoliberal monarchy that embraces corporatism and capitalism ideology and others conservative ideals, but they also maintain social policies. The same can be said about China and, logically given the system of lobbing in USA and all the other countries, can be said about others "democratic" countries. The state development by both ideological systems had produced the same outcome:
National socialism.
Otto Von Bismarck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck), the creator of national socialism. Before German mustache men was even born, Otto Von Bismarck, a chanceler of monarchist (yes, with a king and so on...) Prussia implemented social policies in a very conservative looking state for our current eyes. "Socialism" was first implemented in a monarchist state.
The system of strong social control over the figure of a monarch (or a weak monarch as are the president's) codirecting the country with royalty (who owns social institutions) commanding everyday people while some merchants exist..., that is the natural form of every major human society.
What is called "the liberal" and the "left" ideologies had both corrupted a more balanced ideal where both sides of those ideologies were mixed together to deal with the problems that the society faced. The religion would take the lead in psychologically preparing citizens to survive their hardships (not only death, but pain itself, as even the Shaolin monks have done), the State would maintain social order (even if less inefficient) while some level of social benefits / wellbeing policies were practiced (by Festivals, church donations, state projects)...
And all of that is backed by social nature, as pointed in https://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-Evolutionary-Origins-Good-Society/dp/0316230030
What those movements can do is to correct the inefficiency of religious institutions and the state who are unable to properly memeticaly propagate the ideology that enable people to survive their (existential) hardships or the social backbone to help those.
In this regard, the exaggerations of both liberal and dictatorships, inhuman lack of rights and son are but a political imbalance of the human form of government.
Which country best propagate the ideal form? China, Russia or USA?
@sexlesstosexles
The problem with that is that everybody who is latte in Acquaring that ideal of living is interpreted as a miserable victim.
While, of course, I positively see human rights and the evilness of our time, it is also problematic how this system creates superficial victim mentality and how leftist ideals can be rationalized.
Said that, it apears quiet clearly to me that slavery can be wrong if perpetrated against those of high ethics and morality. Therefore, some levels of human rights are justifiable?
Russia, with Putin, is a neoliberal monarchy that embraces corporatism and capitalism ideology and others conservative ideals, but they also maintain social policies. The same can be said about China and, logically given the system of lobbing in USA and all the other countries, can be said about others "democratic" countries. The state development by both ideological systems had produced the same outcome:
National socialism.
Otto Von Bismarck (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck), the creator of national socialism. Before German mustache men was even born, Otto Von Bismarck, a chanceler of monarchist (yes, with a king and so on...) Prussia implemented social policies in a very conservative looking state for our current eyes. "Socialism" was first implemented in a monarchist state.
The system of strong social control over the figure of a monarch (or a weak monarch as are the president's) codirecting the country with royalty (who owns social institutions) commanding everyday people while some merchants exist..., that is the natural form of every major human society.
What is called "the liberal" and the "left" ideologies had both corrupted a more balanced ideal where both sides of those ideologies were mixed together to deal with the problems that the society faced. The religion would take the lead in psychologically preparing citizens to survive their hardships (not only death, but pain itself, as even the Shaolin monks have done), the State would maintain social order (even if less inefficient) while some level of social benefits / wellbeing policies were practiced (by Festivals, church donations, state projects)...
And all of that is backed by social nature, as pointed in https://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-Evolutionary-Origins-Good-Society/dp/0316230030
What those movements can do is to correct the inefficiency of religious institutions and the state who are unable to properly memeticaly propagate the ideology that enable people to survive their (existential) hardships or the social backbone to help those.
In this regard, the exaggerations of both liberal and dictatorships, inhuman lack of rights and son are but a political imbalance of the human form of government.
Which country best propagate the ideal form? China, Russia or USA?
@sexlesstosexles
